Часть вторая. Литературная деятельность св. Иринея

1. Evidence from antiquity about the literary activity of St. Irenea Historical information about the literary activity of St. Irenaeus dates back to ancient times. More contemporaries of St. father, who lived in the second half of the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd century, know his works and use them in their works. So, already Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius, “mentions (in the essay “On Easter”) about Melito, Irenaeus and some others and cites passages from their creations” (ὧ ν καὶ τὰς διηγήσεις τέθειται). 1330 The author of the so-called Small Labyrinth (probably Hippolytus) speaks of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus as well-known: “Who does not know the books of Irenaeus, Melito and others, in which Christ is called God and man?” 1331 Hippolytus of Rome, according to Photius, 1332 used the data of Contra haereses in his Syntagma. Likewise, in his “Philosophumens” he cites in excerpts a significant part of the first book of this work. 1333 Hippolytus depends on Irenaeus and in many places in the treatise “On the Antichrist,” repeating the thoughts of St. father. 1334 Among the sources of his work “Against the Valentinians,” Tertullian names, among other things, the works of Irenaeus: “Let it not be said everywhere that we ourselves have invented objects for ourselves. For they have already been depicted and declared in the most excellent writings by many men who were not only our predecessors, but also contemporaries, such as: Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, Miltiades, the church sophist, Irenaeus, the most careful researcher of all teachings, and our Proclus, the adornment of virgin age and Christian eloquence. 1335 And in fact, the anti-Gnostic work of the Bishop of Lyons lies at the basis of Tertullian's presentation of the teachings of the Valentinians. 1336 The author of the epilogue Martyrium'a Polycarpi (based on the Moscow manuscript) says that many excellent and most Orthodox works remain from Irenaeus, in which St. the father mentions his teacher Polycarp, refutes all heresies and sets out church teaching in the form he received from the Bishop of Smyrna. The works of Irenaeus, according to the epilogue, also tell about the miraculous announcement of Irenaeus (through the sound of a trumpet) about the death of Polycarp. 1337 An acquaintance with Contra haereses is revealed by Cyprian of Carthage in a letter to Pompey in 1338 and, perhaps, in a treatise stating that “Idols are not gods.” 1339 The most complete information about the literary activity of St. father are reported, however, for the first time only in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” In IV, 21, Eusebius notes the special fertility of Irenaeus as a writer. “In those days (the middle of the 2nd century) flourished in the Church,” he notes, “Hegisippus, known to us from previous narratives, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Pinitus, Philip, Meliton, Muzanus, Modest, and especially (ἐπὶ π ᾶ σιν) Irenaeus. The Orthodoxy of the apostolic tradition and holy faith, which they enclosed in writing, has come down to us.” 1340 In II, 13, 5, the historian mentions, for the first time calling - albeit abbreviated - the title, the great anti-Gnostic work of St. father. Irenaeus, he said, narrates in agreement with Justin, “depicting Simon (the magician) and his impious and vile teaching, in the first book “Against Heresies” (Πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις). Those who want to know what someone needs can read the above-mentioned, not superficially written book of Irenaeus, which speaks not only about this, but also about the origin and life of other heresy leaders and the content of their false teachings.” 1341 Eusebius names the title of the polemical work of Irenaeus - either in abbreviated form (“Against heresies” “Πρὸς τὰς αἱρέ σεις”), 1342 or in full (“Exposure and refutation of false knowledge” “Ἔ λεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπή τῆς ψευδωνύμον γνώσεως") – and in other places of his “History”. In addition, in Books II and mainly III, IV and V he gives more than twenty, sometimes quite long, literal excerpts, 1344 about 5-7 non-literal 1345 and generally makes references to Contra haereses. 1346 In IV, 25, Eusebius mentions the writing of Irenaeus against Marcion the Gnostic. 1347 In V, 20 other works of St. father. “Irenaeus rebelled against people who perverted the sound charter of the Church in Rome and wrote various letters: one to Authority under the title “On Schism” (Περὶ σχίσματος), Another to Florin “On unity of command, or that God is not the creator of evil” (Περὶ because Florinus seems to have defended this opinion. When the latter fell into error with Valentin, Irenaeus composed a book against him “On the Eight” (Περὶ ὀγδοάδος)." 1348 From both letters to Florinus, Eusebius also provides literal excerpts. 1349 Speaking about Victor’s behavior in the Easter disputes of 190–192, the historian notes that on this occasion many bishops sent messages to the pope censure him for excommunicating the Churches of Asia Minor. “Of these epistles, one was written by Irenaeus on behalf of the Gallic brethren subordinate to him.” 1350 Having then cited two literal excerpts from this message, 1351 Eusebius adds: “On the occasion of the dispute that occurred then, he (Irenaeus) had correspondence not only with Victor, but also with various, very many primates of the Churches.” 1352 And in chapter 26 of the same book of “Church History” the following is written: “In addition to the above-mentioned writings and epistles of Irenaeus, there is also a very short, but especially necessary word of his against the Hellenes called “On Knowledge” (Περὶ ἐπιστήμης). There is also another, dedicated to a brother named Marcian, which contains evidence of the apostolic preaching. There is also a book of miscellaneous sermons (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων), in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and quotes some sayings from them. This is all,” the historian concludes, “that has come to our attention regarding the writings of Irenaeus.” 1353 Quotes St. Father Basil the Great in his essay “On the Holy Spirit.” “Let us listen,” he says, “to how Irenaeus, who lived close to the apostles, mentions the Spirit in the word “Against Heresies” (the following are two literal excerpts from V, 8.2 and V, 9.3 Contra haereses). 1354 Ephraim the Syrian also quotes from I, 8, 1 of this work, without, however, directly naming his source. 1355 Cyril of Jerusalem also refers to Irenaeus: “All the encroaching heretics sharpened their tongues against the Holy Spirit and dared to speak blasphemously, as the narrator Irenaeus wrote in the books “On Heresies”” 1356 (St. Cyril further sets out brief information about Simon the Magus, the Valentinians and Marcion based mainly on Contra haereses). 1357 Epiphanius of Cyprus included in his anti-heretical work the entire 20 chapters of Book I of Contra haereses of Irenaeus. Thus, in 31.8 Haereses Epiphanius says: “I did not want to present the remaining details about him (Valentine) on my own, having found in the ancient saint Irenaeus an essay composed against Valentine. Having stated this little so far, then I will make an entire extract (ὁλοσχερῶς) from the books of the above-mentioned man, the servant of God - I mean Irenaeus. It reads like this with him...” 1358 What follows literally: the preface and 1–11,1 of chapter I of the book Contra haereses of Irenaeus. 1359 Concluding the above excerpt, Epiphanius continues: “These and similar empty opinions expressed by the Valentinians were enumerated by the above-mentioned man, Elder Irenaeus, adorned in everything by the Holy Spirit, a courageous ascetic raised up by the Lord, anointed with the heavenly gifts of true faith and knowledge, who defeated and overcame all the absurd teaching of the Valentinians. He brought them to the last extreme in his second book and in others, wishing to even greater extent destroy the prostrate and defeated enemy...” 1360 As we see, Epiphanius apparently had all five books of Irenaeus’s Contra haereses at hand. In 34.1 of his work “On Heresies,” Epiphanius cites another long excerpt: “In order not to go into secondary work, I admitted that I must be content with what was stated by the most blessed and holy Irenaeus about this very Mark (the Gnostic) and his adherents. This is what I tried to offer here word for word and that’s exactly what it is. This Saint Irenaeus, conveying what they teach, says this...” 1361 What follows is a literal extract of 13, 2–21, four chapters of the first book of Irenaeus’ anti-heretical work. 1362 In conclusion, Epiphanius notes: “All this careful research was compiled by the blessed elder Irenaeus, setting out in connection everything from their entire damaged teaching. Therefore, as I had already announced before, being satisfied with the fruits of his thoroughness, we offered everything word for word, as we found from him; because the heretics will be refuted by the very thing that this holy man said against their worthless teaching.” 1363 Epiphanius refers to Irenaeus several more times in his work. 1364 And in general, in the presentation and refutation of the Gnostics, he reveals great dependence on the Bishop of Lyons. 1365 Jerome in the work De viris illustribus repeats 1366 messages of Eusebius (however, with some changes), 1367 combining them into one and expressing them in a more concise form: he (Irenaeus) “wrote 5 books “Against heresies” (quinque adversus haereses libros), a small work “Against the Gentiles”, an essay “On Discipline”, to brother Marcian “On the Apostolic Sermons,” “The Book of Various Teachings,” to Vlast “On the Schism,” to Florinus “On Unity of Command, or That God is not the Author of Evil,” and the excellent book “On the Ogdoad.” Having then cited an excerpt from the last work of Irenaeus included in Eusebius (an admonition to the copyist of the book), Jerome continues: “His other letters are also known: to Victor, Bishop of Rome, regarding the issue of the day of celebration of Easter.” 1368 In chapter 9 of the same work, Jerome says: “John (the apostle) wrote the book of the Apocalypse, which was interpreted (intrepretantur) by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.” 1369 Jerome was probably familiar with the works of St. father, especially with Contra haereses. This is revealed, for example, in his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah: “The apostolic husband Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and martyr, writes very thoroughly about them (the inventions of Basilides, etc.), explaining the origin of many heresies and especially the Gnostics, who, through Mark of Egypt, seduced noble women, first Gaulish near the Rhone, then Spanish, mixing lust with inventions and attributing the name of your ignorance is knowledge.” 1370 The story about Mark and the women seduced by him, probably borrowed from Contra haereses, 1371 Jerome repeats in a letter to Theodora. 1372 And in the preface to the XVIII book of Commentaries on Isaiah, the teaching of Irenaeus concerns the resurrection of the dead and the future kingdom of glory. 1373 In his letter to the orator Magnus, he says: “What can we say about Melito, Apollinaris, Dionysius, Irenaeus, the successor of the martyr Photinus (Pofinus), who in many works explained the origins of all heresies and their origin from well-known philosophical opinions?” 1374 Quotes twice Contra haereses (IV, 2.7 and V, 19.1) and blessed. Augustine in his work Against Julian. 1375 The work Quaestiones et Responsiones ad orthodoxos contains an excerpt (in paraphrase) about not bending the knees on the day of Pentecost, indicating that it is taken from the work of Irenaeus “On the Passover” (Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα). 1376 Wide acquaintance and great dependence on Contra haereses reveals bliss. Theodorite. At the beginning of his hereseological work, he directly points to the works of Irenaeus as one of his sources. “I collected the fables of the ancient heretics from the ancient teachers of the Church - Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, Irenaeus, who educated and enlightened the Celts, Clement, nicknamed Stromatian, Origen... and others who armed their tongues against lies.” 1377 Similar references to Irenaeus (together with other fathers and separately) are made by him several more times. 1378 And in fact, when expounding the teachings of the ancient heretics, Theodoret uses the works of Irenaeus as a basis, only shortening and in places adding to the messages of St. father. 1379 The great work of Irenaeus is often quoted by writers who lived after Theodoret. These are: Procopius of Gaza, 1380 Andrew of Caesarea, 1381 rev. Maximus the Confessor 1382 and others. Rev. Maxim also cites fragments: from a letter from the Bishop of Lyons to Victor in 1383 and from the previously unknown work of Irenaeus “Overe”, addressed to Demetrius, a deacon of Vienna. 1384 A lot of quotes from the works of Irenaeus have been preserved in the Sacra Parallela by St. John of Damascus. 1385 I was well acquainted with the writings of St. father Patriarch Photius. In his “Library” he gives the full and abbreviated titles of Contra haereses, briefly conveys the contents of this work and notes that many other various works and messages remained from Irenaeus, among other things, the message to Victor. 1386 A large number of fragments from Irenaeus have also been preserved in numerous catenas with interpretations of the books of Holy Scripture. 1387 As can be seen from all these reports, especially Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, the literary activity of St. father was quite extensive. He owned, in any case, no less than nine essays on various issues. The great anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus, Contra haereses, enjoyed exceptional respect and authority, judging by the mass of excerpts and references made starting from the 3rd (and perhaps even from the end of the 2nd - in the works of Clement and Tertullian) century and throughout subsequent times. 2. Manuscript codices and printed editions of the works of Irenaeus To this day, however, of all the works of the Holy Father, only two have been completely preserved: “Against Heresies” and the newly discovered (in 1904) “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” The rest are either completely lost, or survive in small fragments from other writers, mainly in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” And the first two are now not available in their original form. As we will show below, and as was natural to expect from a Greek native of Asia Minor, Irenaeus wrote “Against Heresies” and “Proof” in Greek. However, this Greek original has survived to us only in fragments from Eusebius, in the Philosophumena, from Epiphanius, and then mainly only from Book I of Contra haereses. In their entirety, both works of St. father have reached the present day in translations: “Against Heresies” - Latin and Armenian (Books IV-V), “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” - only in Armenian. These translations were initially preserved (“Against Heresies” until the 17th century; “Proof” - until the 20th century) in handwritten form. Nowadays they are available in quite a few printed publications. The Latin manuscripts are as follows. D).Code 1388 Arundelianus (A) received its name from Thomas, Earl of Arundel, a famous bibliophile in his time (1592–1646). He probably bought this manuscript somewhere in Europe. The Earl's library was kept on his estate in England until the grandson of the first owner, Henry Howard, Duke of Norfolk. The latter donated the entire library to the Royal Society. Currently, Codex Arundelianus is located with all other Arundelian manuscripts (since 1831) in the British Museum under number 87. The manuscript dates back to the 13th century. 1389 The work of Irenaeus Contra haereses is not completely preserved in it, but ends on the 31st chapter of Book V. The Codex Arundelianus was used for their publications by Grabe and Harvey. Probably identical to it, according to Loofs, is one of the codes of Erasmus, not named the last (codex tertius Erasmi, in Loofs’ terminology). 1390 2) Codex Vossianus (V) conveys the text of Irenaeus’s work much more fully. It contains what is missing from Arundelianus 32–36, Chapter V of Book V. According to Loofs, 1391 it was exported in the 15th century. from England 1392 by Laurence Burelli and donated to the Carmelite library in Paris (Carmeliter convent). In the 16th century it turned out to be the private property of Canon Jean de Saint-Andreu. In the 17th century it fell into the hands of the famous bibliophile and manuscript collector Isaac Voss. Currently kept in the library of Leiden University under number 33. The manuscript probably dates back to the 14th century. 1393 It was used for their publications by Stiern, Grabe and Harvey. The Codex Vossianus is quite identical, as Loofs proved, 1394, with the Codex vetus, which was used by Feuardentius in his edition; and also, probably, with the code of Passeratii, mentioned and quoted by Massuet. 1395 3) Codex Claromontanus (C) belongs to the same surname as Vossianus. Its existence has become historically known since the 11th century, when it was among the manuscripts of the large library of the monastery in Corbie (in France). In the 16th century this library has lost part of its book treasures. Some of the manuscripts, by the way, ended up in the Jesuit college in Paris, and from here they were acquired by Thomas Philip in England. In his library the number occupied by the Codex Claromontanus is 1669. From him the manuscript, along with others, came into the possession of his son-in-law John Tenwik in Celtenham. 1396 Codex Claromontanus is incomplete: it ends only with the 26th chapter of the V book “Against Heresies”. The exact time when the manuscript appeared is unknown. Massuet puts it no earlier than 900, 1397 Harvey dates it to the 10th century, 1398 and Haenel even to the 11th century. 1399 Loofs, 1400, who carefully examined the manuscript from a paleographic point of view, as well as Harnack 1401, believe that Massuet’s opinion is closer to the truth: the manuscript must be attributed to the 9th century. Codex Claromontanus was used by Massuet, Harvey, and others. 4–5) Codices Merced I (M) and II (μ) - two manuscripts - no longer exist as manuscripts, but are preserved only in the form of variae lectiones in the margins of the Erasmus edition (1567) of the works of Irenaeus belonging to the University of Leiden. 1402 Their first historically known owner was Josiah Merzer, a French book publisher mentioned in Massuet 1403, who gained fame as a textual critic († 1626). From him they got their name. 1404 6–7) Codex Ottobonianus I (0 1) and II (0 2) - two manuscripts - are named after Cardinal Ottobon, in whose library (in Rome) they were originally kept. Massuet knew them. 1405 Recently they have gained fame through Pitra (in Analecta Sacra. T. P. R. 190, etc.). 1406 The first is marked here No. 1154, the second - No. 752. Both codes are incomplete: they end, like Arundelianus, on the 31st chapter of Contra haereses. The time of their appearance is the 15th century. (second codex, maybe in 1412 or around 1450) 1407 8–9) Codex Vaticanus I (V 1) and II (V 2) - two manuscripts - were kept in Rome. The first is known under No. 187, the second - No. 188. The second was written for Pope Nicholas V, which means between 1447 and 1455; the first was probably also in the 15th century. 1408 With these manuscripts, as Loofs proves, it is quite possible that the hitherto unknown codex used by Feyardentius in 1409 under the name codex Vaticanus is identical; although it is difficult to decide whether this latter is more suitable for No. 187 or 188. 1410 The name Vaticanus also denotes the codex that was in the hands of the scientist Latinus Latanius (1513–1593), according to his biographer. 1411 It is impossible to make precise judgments about him. But Loofs suggests quite strongly that Latinius probably had a Codex Vaticanus. No. 187 1412 Under the same name (exactly: Romanus) one of the codes that Erasmus had when he published the works of Irenaeus is also known. Loofs, however, thinks that this is not a special one, hitherto unknown, but Codex Vaticanus No. 188, described by Pitra. 1413 10) Erasmus once cites the Codex Hirsaugiensis in the margins. But from this quote it is difficult to judge what this manuscript was and whether it was identical or different from those now existing. 1414 Loofs has some notes on five more codes: 11) Cod. Carthusianus, mentioned by Pitra. 1415 12–13) Cod. Laureshamensis I and II from the monastery of St. Nazariya in Loriss on the Rhine. and 15) Cod. Rothomagensis. The last four are mentioned, according to Loofs, 1416 by Becker in his Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, 1885. However, Loofs himself refuses to express a decisive judgment about all these manuscripts and limits himself only to reporting historical information about them. 1417 The named scholar, as we have already said, subjected all the existing Latin manuscripts of Irenaeus to a thorough critical analysis and, on the basis of his research, especially regarding the different division of Contra haereses into chapters in some codes, came to the conclusion that they all belong, in essence, to two main families. One is represented by the codices Claromontanus and Vossianus, the other by all the others. They are, undoubtedly, based on one archetype, the origin of which, according to Loofs, must be attributed to the early times of the ancient Church. The German scientist graphically presents all his conclusions in the following table. 1418 (The letter D here stands for a now non-existent archetype; H and B are its first lists.) Of the manuscripts that have reached us, the older, better preserved and generally most valuable, according to Loofs, is the 1419 group, represented by the codices Claromontanus and Vossianus. The first one, belonging to the 9th century, should be especially noted. In December 1904, the scholar Armenian archimandrite Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian, 1420, leafing through books stored in the library of the Church of Our Lady in Erivan, accidentally discovered several ancient manuscripts in the Armenian language. One of them bore the title: “Irenea - proof of the apostolic preaching.” Mkrtchyan at first thought that the whole thing was a copy of this lost work of St. father. However, upon closer examination, it turned out that the largest, first part of it was occupied by the last two (IV and V) books of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus, Contra haereses, the full title of which was placed at the end of them. And only after them, with the repeated title “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching,” does the essay addressed to Marcian begin. There are notes in the margins of the manuscript, from which it is clear that it was written by order of Archbishop John. The latter in these notes is called Rabbun (as a learned man) and brother of the holy king, which title in Armenian history is attached to Hethum of Cilicia (1226-1270). Archbishop John was known in his time as a bibliophile. He owned an extensive and rich library, bought manuscripts from other people and himself copied them. He was ordained bishop in 1259. He received the rank of archbishop around 1270. The presence of the last title in the codex containing “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” therefore indicates the last quarter of the 13th century. (John died in 1289), as the time of the appearance of his first list. 1421 The Dutch scientist Wieten, who was specially involved in the study of the said work of Irenaeus, proved, however, that the Armenian text of the manuscript was poorly preserved. 1422 One must therefore think that what is now available is at least a third copy of the original original. The first printed edition of the works of St. his father in Latin was undertaken by Desiderius Erasmus in 1526 (Basel), using three manuscripts: one Roman and two others delivered to him from the monasteries. Its publication was reprinted several times. In 1570, a publication by the Calvinist Gallasius appeared (in Geneva), adding to the Latin the Greek text from the work of Epiphanius; and in 1571 the Calvinist Greenei (in Basel). In 1596, the Franciscan Feyardentius (Köln) published the works of Irenaeus; This edition was later reprinted in 1639. In 1702, Ernest Grabe's edition (Oxoniae) was published based on the manuscripts of the codexes Vossianus and Arundelianus. In 1710, the Benedictine Renat Massuet published his edition (in Paris) based on the codes: Claromontanus and some others. It was then reprinted in Venice in 1734 (in two parts). It was also included without changes in Migne’s publication (Migne. PG. 1857. T. VII). In 1848–1853 a publication was published by Adolf Stieren (Lipsiae), a German scientist (in two volumes), and four years later - simultaneously with Minevsky (in 1857) - by the English scientist W. Harvey (in two volumes). The 20th century also did not remain indebted to Irenaeus. In 1907, 1423 a new edition of his works was undertaken by the Italian Ubaldo Mannucci in Rome. Most of the named publications (excluding Erasmus) have much in common with each other. First come the publishers' praefationes, then preliminary remarks on the life and writings of St. Irenea. Comparatively brief in Feyardentius and Grabe, the latter grow into entire Dissertationes in Massuet. What follows is the very text of Irenaeus’s main work, Contra haereses, with most of the first book set out in Latin and Greek, the rest only in Latin. The Contra haereses are followed by Greek fragments from Eusebius, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and other Fathers; then various kinds of annotationes of writers and publishers: Finally, various indexes (rerum et sententiarum, passages of Holy Scripture, Latin terms, etc.). Massuet added to his edition the praefationes, prolegomena, notae et observationes of publishers and writers before him. But the latter are especially fully presented in Stiren, who devoted exclusively the entire second volume of his edition to them. Harvey, in addition to Contra haereses and Greek fragments, gives passages in Syriac and Armenian. Manucci's edition is based on the Latin text of Massueta. But in some places the Italian scientist, by his own admission, gives preference to the publications of Stiren or Harvey. In addition, he personally had on hand four Vatican manuscripts that he used. The account of the chapters of Contra haereses varies considerably among Grabe, Massuet and Harvey. The most common at present are: the generally recognized good edition of 1424 by R. Massuet in the Greek series of Migne (especially among Russian scientists), and then by Stiren and Harvey. About the last one; however, Harnack, not without reason, notes that he cannot be trusted, especially where the Codex Glaromontanus was used by English scientists. 1425 The only advantage of this edition is that it contains the text of some passages of Contra haereses in Greek in the form of excerpts from Hippolytus’s “Philosophumena” and, in addition, as we have already noted, fragments are printed in Syriac and Armenian. 1426 In 1910, the publication of the Armenian text of 1427 IV and V books “Against Heresies” (opened together with the “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”) was published in the famous series Texte und Untersuchungen. Here is, first of all, the preface of the publisher Minasyants, which is for the most part a repetition of those messages that were given in the first edition of the “Proof”: about the discovery of the manuscript, the translation of Irenaeus’s works into Armenian, etc. Then follows: the topics of the contents of the chapters, the very text of the IV and V books of Contra haereses, Irenaeus’s quotations from the dictionary of Stefan Roszka and an index of places Holy Scriptures (all - with the exception of the preface - only in Armenian). In Russian, until 1871, Irenaeus’s works appeared only in the form of excerpts in “Sunday Reading” (Vol. XVIII, XIX, XX-XXII, XXIV, XXVIII) and “Christian Reading” (for 1838). In 1871, “Against Heresies” was published in its entirety and the fragments that had survived until that time were translated by the priest (later archpriest) P. Preobrazhensky. The translation (quite good) is made mainly from the Latin edition of Migne's Massuet, but all the Syriac and Armenian fragments (translated from English) missing from Migne and printed by Harvey have also been added. In 1900, the second edition of the Russian translation was published, without changes. 1428 In 1907, the first edition of the newly discovered work of Irenaeus “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” appeared in Leipzig, undertaken by the Armenian scientists Ter-Mkrtchyan and Ter-Minasyants with the assistance of A. Harnack and Privatdozent Fink (published in Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXI. H. 1). Here is first placed a preface (in German) by Ter-Mkrtchyan about the discovery of the monument, the manuscript in which it was preserved, the time of translation of Irenaeus’ works into Armenian, the present edition, etc. What follows is the Armenian text of the work and the German translation from it, made by the named Armenian scientists under the editorship of Fink. At the end there are added: an afterword and notes to the edition of A. Harnack and an index of passages of Holy Scripture and patristic literature cited in the work. In 1908, a second, slightly improved edition of the German translation of “Evidence” was published. In 1909, it was again translated and published in Dutch (from the Armenian-German edition) by the Dutch scientist L.T. Wieten, who amended the text in comparison with Harnack's edition (mainly based on the instructions of the famous expert on the Armenian language, the English scholar Conybeare) 1429 and supplied it with quite extensive parallels from Contra haereses and notes. 1430 And at the end of 1913, a new edition of the “Evidence” appeared in print in German in the Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, published by Bardengever, Scherman and Weimann. The translation was again made from Armenian by prof. Weber. 1431 “Proof” was translated into Russian (from the first German edition) by prof. N.I. Sagard and published in 1907 under the title “The Newly Discovered Work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" (St. Petersburg, first published in Christian Reading for the indicated year, then published as a separate brochure). Here, in addition to the translation itself, information about the discovery and first edition of the work is provided, the question of its authenticity and time of origin is resolved; Notes are also given on the significance of the newly discovered work. 1432 Chapter I. “Exposure and refutation of false knowledge” (“Against heresies”) The first place in volume and significance among the works of Irenaeus is undoubtedly occupied by the anti-Gnostic work of St. father. Eusebius gives in his “History” the full title “Against Heresies,” as we wrote above: “Ἔ λεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδω νύμου γνώσεως” “The exposure and refutation of false knowledge.” 1433 In the Latin translation it is usually rendered: “Detectio et eversio falso cognominatae agnitionis.” Irenaeus, in the preface to the second book, notes that he entitled his work as it is because it contains a “conviction and refutation” (detectio et eversio) of the teachings of the heretics. 1434 Apparently, the words given in quotation marks were part of the original title given by the author himself. In the preface to Book IV, it is conveyed, however, a little differently: “de detectione et eversione falsae cognitibnis” (“on the exposure and refutation of false knowledge”). 1435 In the preface to Book V it says: “de traductione et eversione falso cognominatae agnitionis.” 1436 In the same way, in IV, 41.4, the work of Irenaeus is called “opus exprobrationis et eversionis falso cognominatae agnitionis.” 1437 As we see, there is some difference not only between Eusebius and the Latin text of the work of Irenaeus, but also between different places of the same Latin text. How to explain it? Is this due to the Latin translation of Against Heresies or to the Greek original of this work itself? Who more correctly and accurately conveys the title: Eusebius or the existing Latin translation? A closer examination of all the given forms shows that the difference between them is in itself insignificant and concerns only some shades. In essence, all the expressions of the Latin text convey the same idea as Eusebius. The title in the prefaces to book V (de traductione et eversione...) and to book II (detectio et eversio) almost literally coincides with that given by Eusebius. (In the first case, the difference is perhaps only in one word: instead of detectio there is traductio; in the second, the Latin text conveys the shortened title of Irenaeus’s work.) From here we can already recognize our first assumption as more consistent with reality; the difference appears to be due to the inaccuracy of the Latin translation. This conclusion has recently found confirmation in the newly published Armenian text of books IV and V of Contra haereses. In the prefaces to both 1438 books, as well as in IV, 41.4, there are words corresponding to the Greek “Ἔ λεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπή τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως ". 1439 Thus, obviously, the Greek original (from which the Armenian translation was directly made) “Against Heresies” conveyed the full title of this work in the same form as Eusebius; and “The Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge” must be recognized as belonging to Irenaeus himself. In this form, this title is relatively long and inconvenient for all kinds of literary works. Therefore, in the same “Church History” of Eusebius it is given in an abbreviated form: “Πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις” - “Against heresies.” 1440 In the same form, along with the full form, 1441 it is also used by other Greek fathers (Basily the Great, 1442 Cyril of Jerusalem 1443, etc.). And some replace: “Κατὰ τῶν αἱρέσεων”, 1444 “Καθ ’ αἱρέσεων”, 1445 “Κατὰ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως ", 1446 " Κατὰ Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος " 1447 or even " Εἰς τὰς αἱρέσεις ". 1448 In Jerome's translation into Latin Eusebius "Πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις" is rendered Adversus haereses. 1449 Subsequently, along with and along with this form, a somewhat different, although essentially identical, “Contra haereses” appeared among Latin authors. Both of the latter are still used by Western European scientists from all countries. In the conclusion to Book IV of Contra haereses, St. Irenaeus says that when writing his work, he had in mind to give both himself and his friend (et nos ipsos, et te) a guide to confrontation (contradictionem) with all heretics. 1450 From this it is clear that the reason for the appearance of the five books “Against Heresies” was the spread of Gnostic false teachings. Gnosticism was fundamentally opposed to Christianity, destroyed its teaching, separated it from the Church and deprived many of its children of salvation. No Christian could remain calm at the sight of the success of the heresy. Moreover, of course, St. Irenaeus. A disciple of Polycarp, he was the custodian of the apostolic tradition. Received a good church and secular education. Had enough means to fight gnosis in writing. He, more than others, 1451 knew the very teaching of the Gnostics from the writings and personal conversations with their outstanding representatives. 1452 Seeing the death of his Christian brothers, he considered himself morally obliged to speak out against the seducers. “Love,” he writes to a friend, “prompts me to reveal to you and all your loved ones those teachings that until now have been hidden in secret”; 1453 “and I desire,” he notes in another place, “that all people will come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1454 But this is not enough. Heretics appeared in the Rhone countries, that is, near, and perhaps even in Lyon itself. The Valentinian Mark and his assistants seduced and separated many women from the Church. 1455 The danger thus concerned St.'s own flock. father. The enemy was at the gate. And could he, “a zealot of the covenant of Christ,” remain calm? He was “entrusted with the care” of his verbal flock. 1456 He was responsible if, through his fault, “some, like sheep, would be stolen by wolves.” 1457 In a word, he had, in addition to the general Christian duty, the moral, formal, legal, so to speak, duty of a shepherd. And he was well aware of this. 1458 He was also prompted to write an anti-Gnostic work by the request of a friend who wanted to have a good guide in the fight against heretics. 1459 The last two circumstances served as the immediate reasons for the composition of Contra haereses. Neither Irenaeus himself, nor Eusebius, nor other fathers indicate who the addressee of this work was. When determining it, therefore, one has to rely solely on the internal data of the Contra haereses themselves. And here the following appears. In the preface to the first book, Irenaeus says that he lives among the Celts and for the most part deals with a barbarian language (βάρβα ρον διάλεκιον). 1460 The last term was usually used by the Greeks in relation to any non-Greek dialect. The Holy Father came from a Greek family, so he put it that way. But it is obvious that its addressee also belonged to Greek nationality: otherwise, such an expression would have been incomprehensible to him, and perhaps even offensive (if he had been a Celt, for example). On the other hand, the fact that Irenaeus had to “send” 1461 his writings to a friend, and the very emphasis that he (Irenaeus) lives among the Celts, indicate with sufficient clarity that the said friend lived not in Gaul, but somewhere else. Perhaps his place of residence was Asia Minor. In the same preface, St. the father speaks of the addressee of Contra haereses as one to whom grace has been given from God ("κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου σοι δεδομένην"). 1462 In addition, as can be seen from here 1463 and from other places in this work, 1464 his “attendants” were grouped around him, people to whom he explained the truths of Christ’s teaching (παραστήσεις ... ἀπηγγελ μένα) and to whom he was also supposed to clarify the nature of the Gnostic false teaching and methods to his refutation, reported by Irenaeus. Obviously, this friend occupied a relatively high hierarchical position, perhaps he was a bishop in some city in Asia Minor. The very tone of St.’s address speaks for the latter. father to him, as an equal to an equal (and Irenaeus at that time, as we will show below, was already the Bishop of Lyons). In the same preface, St. the father calls his friend “the most capable” of himself, one who, by the breadth of his mind, can weakly and briefly present what Irenaeus said in strength and abundance to his listeners. 1465 The relationship between him and St. fathers were the best. The latter calls him nothing more than dilectissime (Greek ἀγαπητέ) “most dear,” “beloved,” “friend”; 1466 lovingly fulfills his request for books against heretics. All these data, as we see, are not so definite that on the basis of them it would be possible to directly and accurately indicate any figure of that time. Conclusions from them can only be approximate. In our opinion, taking them into account, the addressee of Contra haereses can be recognized as Polycrates of Ephesus (participant in the Easter disputes). He lived just at the time of writing this work. He was Greek by birth, occupied the episcopal see, and enjoyed great authority among his flock. 1467 During his time, Gnosticism spread greatly in Asia Minor. The need to refute heretics was great here too. It seems that no substantive objections can be raised against our assumption. And in addition to the naturalness already indicated, what speaks in his favor is the intense connection that generally existed with St. Irenaeus with Asia Minor and its Christian population. 1468 In the preface to Book III “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus writes: “I sent you (my friend) my books (misimus tibi libros), of which the first contains the opinions of all (heretics) and reveals their customs and character of behavior, and in the second their perverse teaching is refuted and destroyed... In this third book I will present (in hoc tertio inferemus) evidence from the Scriptures.” 1469 The combination of the first books into one (sets, libros), in the absence of mention of the sending of the first in the conclusion to it or in the preface to the second, suggests that both of the first were sent at the same time. And the past form of the verb (misimus) next to the future about the third book (inferemus) indicates that the sending of this and the following ones took place later than those. In the preface to Book IV of St. the father says: “Sending (trans-mittens) to you, friend, this fourth book (quartum librum), I will confirm with the words of the Lord...”, etc. 1470 And in IV, 41, 4 it stands: “Other sayings of the Lord... and the exposition of the letters of St. Paul I will present (disponentes) in another book (in altera libra V) and thus, with the help of God, I will deliver (praebebimus) to you complete essay: “Exposing and refuting false knowledge,” giving in these five books (in quinque libris) both myself and you a guide to confrontation with all heretics.” 1471 Here, as we see, the verbs corresponding to misimus in the first case are appended separately to books IV and V. From here it is clear that the latter were written and sent at different times from each other and later than others. However, neither in the text “Against Heresies” itself, nor in other sources, there is any reason to stretch this multi-temporality over two decades, as Bardengever, 1472 Stieren 1473 and some other authors do. There was a great need for writing; it was necessary to hurry with him. Therefore, the books were probably written directly one after the other, and the entire period of their compilation did not exceed the two or three years necessary for processing. Hence, when the question of the time of the appearance of Contra haereses is raised, there is no need to solve it separately about each book, but we can talk about the entire work of St. father. But when was it written? In the preface to Book I (§ 2) St. Irenaeus declares that he does not have the skill to write. 1474 He, of course, would not have used such a phrase if he had already composed several other works. In addition, Contra haereses is mentioned by him in 1475 and is very much used in the treatise “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”. 1476 One can therefore think that the anti-Gnostic work was one of his first literary works. 1477. At what time exactly did it appear? There is no external historical evidence determining its date, with the exception, perhaps, of the general phrases of Eusebius 1478 and Jerome, 1479, which attribute the period of intensive activity of Irenaeus generally to the time of Commodus. Therefore, it is necessary to rely solely on data from the text of the essay itself. And here the following appears. Listing all the Roman bishops in III, 3.3, Irenaeus dwells on the last one and remarks about him: “Now (νῦν) in twelfth place from the apostles, the lot of the bishopric has (κατέχει) Elevther.” 1480 Nov, standing in this case, says that the essay was written during the life of Pope Elevther. And he occupied the Roman see 174-175 to 189 1481 Thus we cannot in any case place the date of the writing of Contra haereses below the last year. From IV, 30.1 it is clear that at the time of writing the anti-Gnostic work, some believers were at the royal court and occupied a fairly high position there, so that they could even help their poor brothers financially. 1482 In addition, and in general judging by Contra haereses, the Church at that time enjoyed the world. 1483 Both of these facts can best be applied to the time of Commodus, who was tolerant of Christians. 1484 The latter was emperor from 180 to 192 1485 In this case, the date of the composition of Irenaeus is determined somewhat more precisely. Obviously, it could have been written in the second half of the bishopric of Eleuther, that is, between 180 (the accession of Commodus to the throne) and 189 (the death of Eleuther). Taking into account that the service of believers at the royal court is spoken of as a well-known and firmly established fact, it is best to consider the time of its writing as 185 and the following years, until 189. 1486 The data about the personality of Irenaeus himself, which is in Contra haereses, is in complete harmony with this chronology. Judging by them, the anti-Gnostic work was written, undoubtedly, during the bishopric of St. father maybe in the middle of it. This is evidenced by the passages we have already cited above, when Irenaeus explains the motives for writing Contra haereses. One of them was the awareness of the responsibilities that were imposed on St. his father's rank. “I am appointed,” he says, “for the service of words” (in administratione sermonis positi sumus); 1487 “I have been entrusted with the care of this matter.” 1488 The confident tone of such statements was hardly appropriate in the mouth of a presbyter, for example, when there was a bishop next to him. On the other hand, the general character of all Irenaeus’s speeches reveals in him a man who has lived, experienced a lot and changed his mind; which again is more in harmony with the years of episcopacy. Finally, presenting oneself as the custodian of the apostolic tradition of 1489 would have been completely unthinkable if the revered and pious disciple of the apostles, the elderly Pofinus, had been alive. The place where “Against Heresies” was written was Gaul, most likely Lyon. This is evident, first of all, from the words of St. that we have repeatedly cited. Irenaeus in the preface to Book I. “You will not demand from me, living among the Celts (ἐν κελτο ἶ ς) and for the most part dealing with a barbarian language (βάρβαρον διάλεκτον), neither the art of speech, which I have not studied, nor the ability to write....” 1490 Likewise in I; 13, 7 St. the father says: they (the Marcians) “and in our Rhone borders (ἐν τοῖς καθ ᾿ ἡμας κλίμασι τῆς Ῥ οδανουσιας) seduced many women... Some of them (women) clearly confess in this (ἐξομολογοῦνται), while others... have partly retreated, partly are in a wavering position.” 1491 The present tense of the verbs in the last excerpt indicates that in telling about the Marcians and the women seduced by them, Irenaeus himself was within the same “Rhone boundaries” (and Lyon is also located on the Rhone River). The first excerpt cited also gives some indications regarding the original language of Against Heresies. It shows that Irenaeus distinguished the colloquial dialect common to the area where he now lived from the literary dialect in which his main work was written. The first he calls “barbarian,” which term, as we have already noted, was applied by the Greeks to any non-Greek language. During the time of St. Father's spoken language in Gaul was Celtic. 1492 This is obviously what Irenaeus defines as βάρβαρον διάλεκτον. This spoken language in St. his father is presented, however, as one who, as it were, “spoiled” his literary. But “damage” can only be in something already firmly established. Obviously, Irenaeus’s native language, the one he spoke from childhood, before moving to Lyon, turned out to be “spoiled.” And we know that this was the Greek dialect. This means that Contra haereses were originally written on it; as was natural to expect from a Greek author. 1493 This conclusion is confirmed by the very opposition of the literary language to the “barbarian dialect”. Obviously, the first one was not barbarian (non-Greek). In addition, according to Strabo, in 1494, in times close to Irenaeus, the Greek language in general in Gaul was accepted as a common literary language for the entire educated society. Our conclusion is indirectly confirmed by Eusebius when he cites the title of Contra haereses and numerous excerpts from them in Greek, keeping silent about the fact that he translated them from Latin, as he notes in other cases. 1495 In the same way, Jerome directly places St. father among the Greek writers of that time. 1496 And about the books, Irenaeus says that they are written in excellent language (doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone compositos). 1497 Such expressions can in no way be applied to the current clumsy, crude 1498 Latin translation; but they are quite suitable for the Greek passages preserved by Epiphanius and other fathers. 1499 In the present Latin text there are a lot of Greek phrases, expressions, 1500, etc. etc., which also cannot speak for its originality. In § 2 of the preface to Book I “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus writes: “For this (refuting heretics), as much as I can, I will briefly and clearly outline the opinions ... of the followers of Ptolemy and together I will present the means for their refutation (πρὸς ἀνατρέπειν αὐτήν).” 1501 And in the preface to book II it says: “In this book I will refute all their (the Gnostics) teachings (omnem ipsorum regulam).” 1502 Judging by these words, one can think that Irenaeus initially intended to write only two books to his friend. One should have been a “ἔλεγχος” presentation of the teachings of the heretics, and the other should have been a comprehensive one. refutation (ἀνατροπή). However, finishing the second book, St. the father recognized the need to add a third, additional one to it, since that one, in his opinion, was not quite enough to refute it. There he operated more with the data of the mind. Here he wants to cite evidence from Holy Scripture and examine passages that were incorrectly interpreted by the Gnostics. 1503 But not everything fits into this book. Due to the mass of material, Irenaeus considered it necessary to write two more new ones in succession: one to analyze the sayings of the Lord, 1504 the other to present the teachings of St. Paul in connection with his Gnostic reinterpretations. 1505 Speaking about this, St. the father definitely names his books: “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. 1506 From here it is clear that the division of all work into books was established by him. As for the division into chapters and departments, it is of later origin. This is indicated by the difference that exists in this regard between the main manuscript codices (which can be seen through a simple comparison of the editions of Massuet, Grabe and Harvey). 1507 Obviously, initially it was not even in the Old Latin translation, and it was introduced by copyists, probably simultaneously with the first lists of the two main names of the manuscripts. 2. Contents “Against Heresies” Book one. At the beginning of the first book of St. Irenaeus indicates the reasons for the publication of his present work. Some (Gnostics), he says, rejecting the truth, began to introduce false teachings and “vain genealogies,” which, as the apostle puts it, “produce more controversy than God’s edification in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:4). These people distort the sayings of the Lord, interpret the Holy Scriptures in their own way and, under the pretext of knowledge (γνώσεως), seduce many and turn them away from the Creator and Decorator of the universe. Their false teaching is all the more dangerous because it is spreading among simple, inexperienced people who are unable to independently distinguish lies from truth. In addition, heretics present their views in an attractive form, so that their error, dressed in tempting clothing, “in its appearance appears to the inexperienced to be truer than the truth itself.” St. Irenaeus was well acquainted with the views of the Gnostics. He read the writings of Valentine's disciples and learned their way of thinking from personal conversations with representatives of the heresy. As a shepherd, he recognized himself at the same time as responsible for the “verbal flock”, fearing that because of the silence of the Church “the sheep would not be kidnapped by wolves (heretics).” A friend’s request also prompted him to perform. That's why St. the father considered it necessary to present to his addressee the “deep and monstrous sacraments” of the heretics “with the goal that he himself would recognize them, and open them to his close people and convince them to beware of the abyss of meaninglessness and blasphemy against Christ.” Irenaeus intends, first of all, as far as possible, to “briefly and clearly state the opinions of those who are currently spreading the perverse teaching, that is, the followers of Ptolemy, who constitute the offspring of the Valentinian school; and then, to the best of your ability, present means to refute them and reveal the absurdity of their words and inconsistency with the truth.” He himself does not recognize himself as a good writer. He has neither the skill nor the art of speech, nor the ability to write, nor the beauty of expressions and captivating style. His love for his brothers and the desire to reveal the secrets of heretics now prompts him to write (Preface, § 1–3). What follows immediately is a presentation of Gnostic theories, which occupies almost the entire first book of Contra haereses. 2/3 of the content is devoted here to the systems of Ptolemy and Mark, representatives of the Valentinian school, operating within Gaul. First there is a presentation of the views of Ptolemy (Ch. 1–10). The Holy Father conveys the heretic's teaching about the highest members of the divine pleroma: the First Father of all (Βυθός) and his companion Thought, or Silence; about the origin of Mind and Truth from them; and through these - Word and Life, Man and Church (eight); about the product of the last two pairs of 22 lower eons, as a result of which the tridecimal, or pleroma, was obtained (Chapter 1, 1–3). Next, Ptolemy’s fabrications about the adventures of Wisdom, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the activity of the latter among the eons are set out in some detail; about the appearance of Jesus the Savior and His angels (Chapter 2). The story of Achamoth, the origin of the Demiurge and the devil, the creation of the external world and three types of people: iliks, psychics and pneumatics (Ch. 4–6) is conveyed. The history of the economy (as the Gnostics represented it) is outlined in the Old Testament and the New, starting with the coming of Christ the Savior to earth and ending with the final destinies of the world (Ch. 6–7). Characterizes St. The father also describes the attitude of the Gnostics to Holy Scripture as a source of doctrine, and reports on the methods that the heretics used in interpreting the passages they needed. 1508 As an illustration, several texts of the New Testament are given with the interpretation of the Gnostics (Ch. 8-9). Having sorted them out, St. the father comes to the conclusion that the interpretations of the heretics are untenable, that they take only individual words, names and parables from Holy Scripture, but give them a blasphemous application (9.4). This can immediately be noticed by any Christian who accepted the “rule of truth” in baptism (κανών τῆς ἀληθείας) and steadily maintains it (Ibid.). And the rule of faith is the same throughout the entire Church, although it is scattered throughout the universe. (St. Irenaeus considers it necessary to quote the entire “rule.”) The Church “received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God the Father, the Almighty, who created heaven and earth, the sea and everything that is in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets announced the whole economy of God: the coming, and the birth of the Virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension in the flesh into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord; and also His appearance from heaven in the glory of the Father, to “head all” (Eph. 1:10) and to resurrect all flesh of all mankind, so that before Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, Savior and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, “every knee may bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess to Him” (Phil. 2:10), and may He create righteous judgment on everyone: the spirits of evil and angels who have sinned and fallen away, as well as the ungodly, unrighteous, lawless and blasphemous people He will send into eternal fire; on the contrary, to the righteous and holy, who kept His commandments and abided in love for Him from the beginning or through repentance, He will grant life, grant incorruption and create eternal glory” (Ch. 10:1). This “preaching of the truth” (κήρυγμα τῆς αληθείας) is transmitted invariably and preserved unanimously in all local Churches, wherever they are founded: in Germany, Spain, Gaul or Jerusalem. Any primate will hand it over in essentially the same form. “The greater or lesser knowledge of some does not consist in changing the content itself... but in carefully examining the thought of what is said in the parables and agreeing with the content of faith... revealing the course of affairs and the economy of God regarding the human race...” (Ch. 10, 2-3). After this short digression, Irenaeus goes back to the presentation of Gnostic systems that he had interrupted. Having finished with the teachings of Ptolemy, he considers it necessary to note the difference between him and other representatives of the Valentinian school, when, in the words of St. father, “two or three of them do not say the same thing about the same thing, but contradict each other both in the essence of the matter and in names” (11, 1). Thus, Valentinus, the founder of the school, recognizes the existence of two Limits (instead of one in Ptolemy). Christ, too, according to him, was not produced by the zones of the pleroma, but by the Mother, who was outside the pleroma, and generated by her with some kind of shadow. He cut off this shadow from himself and ascended into the pleroma; and the Mother after that gave birth to another son - Demiurge. The views of Valentine and Ptolemy on the origin of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also different (11:1). And Secundus says that the first eight consists of the right quaternary and the left quaternary. He calls the first light, the second darkness (11:2). Another of these teachers (maybe Epiphanius?) teaches that at the head of the pleroma is the First Principle, which is called Unity (μονότης). In syzygy with her is a force called Unity (ἐνότης). From this pair came "the beginning of everything, mental, unborn and invisible, which the word calls Unity (μονάς)." Co-present with this Unit is a force called the One (τὸἔν). From these four came all other eons (11,3). There is no less difference in views between Ptolemy and his students. Thus, some of the latter say that Depth has two consorts: Thought and Will (12.1); others convince that “the first eight did not occur gradually, but all the eons were simultaneously and simultaneously produced by the First Father and his Thought” (12, 3). There is also a lot of disagreement in opinions about the Savior (the Holy Father indicates the points of this disagreement - 12.4). Irenaeus devotes chapters 13–22 to the teaching of Mark. First St. the father provides information about the heretic’s magical tricks: how he celebrates the Eucharist on large and small cups; appears to be a prophet at the suppers he hosts; how he makes his chosen women prophesy; how, taking advantage of his position, he corrupts these women morally and physically (13:1–5). His disciples also do this, even within Gaul (13:6-7). What follows is a presentation of the theological views of Mark and his followers, based on the artificial understanding and interpretation of letters and numbers (Ch. 14–15). In support of their views, these heretics also referred to certain passages of Holy Scripture. Irenaeus cites and correctly explains such texts (Ch. 15–19 and 20). Celebrated by St. father and the fact that the Marcians accept on top of Holy Scripture “an untold multitude of apocryphal and forged writings that they themselves compiled” (20.1). The report of information about this group ends with a story about how its representatives perform a special sacrament - “redemption” (ἀπολύτροοσις - Chapter 21). Having cited church teaching on the issues raised by the heretics, Irenaeus concludes that “by adhering to this rule [of faith], we can easily show, despite the great diversity and multitude of opinions, that these people (the Gnostic Marcians) have deviated from the truth” (22, 1). Further St. the father proceeds to expound (briefly) the systems of the Gnostics who preceded Valentinus, Ptolemy and Marcus, so that the recipient of the Contra haereses will know the “source and origin” of all false teachings and “understand the nature of the tree that produced such fruits” (Valentine, Ptolemy, etc.). 1509 The beginning of its “false knowledge” (Christian Gnosticism), according to Irenaeus, comes from Simon, a sorcerer known from the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter 8), who amazed the people with his sorceries and asked the apostles to sell him the gift of miracles. This Simon, having bought a certain woman named Helen in Tire of Phoenicia, took her with him everywhere and passed her off as the first Thought (Ἔ ννοια), the Mother of all things. She allegedly gave birth to angels and powers, with whom, according to Simon, the outer world was created. Subsequently, the angels imprisoned their mother in a human body, and she began to live on earth, reincarnating from one woman to another (transmigration of the soul). Finally, Elena gave herself up to a depraved house. Simon himself came to save her from such dishonor, and together for the salvation of all people. (He equated himself with the Savior.) The Simonians presented the origin and personality of the Lord docetically. The mystical priests of this sect lived, according to St. Irenaeus, dissolutely, used drugs that arouse love and attraction and practiced sorcery (Ch. 23, 1–4). Simon's successor was Menander, a Samaritan by birth, also skilled in magic. He pretended to be a messenger of invisible forces and the savior of the world. According to him, through the art of sorcery, which he taught, his adherents were given the power to defeat the very angels who created the world. His disciples, through baptism in his name, receive resurrection and cannot die, but remain ageless and immortal (Ch. 23, 5). In the teachings of subsequent Gnostics one notices more points in common with Valentinianism. Saturninus from Syria taught that there is one, unknown Father, who created angels, archangels, strength and authority. Angels created the world and man; the latter, however, only in the body. A higher power gave man a spiritual “spark of life.” Saturninus presented the cause and personality of the Savior docetically. The followers of this heretic rejected marriage and the birth of children: but some of them, according to St. Irenaeus, abstained from meat and seduced many with such imaginary asceticism (Ch. 24, 1-2). Basilides taught that, first of all, the Mind was born from the unborn Father; from Mind came the Word; from the Word - Reason (φρόνησις); from Reason - Wisdom and Strength. From the last two came angels. Angels created the first heaven. Through the outflow of them, other angels appeared and created another heaven, similar to the first. From these came the next group of angels, who created the third heaven and so on. At the end of this successive origin there were 365 groups of angels and 365 heavens. The angels occupying the last sky visible to us appeared as the organizers of the world, dividing among themselves the earth and the peoples living on it. The chief of these angels is the one who is called the Jewish God. He wanted to subjugate all nations to the Jews. But the other angels opposed him. The rest of the nations fell away from the Jews. Seeing their destruction, the Father sent to earth his original Mind, which is called Christ and which was supposed to free all nations from the power of the universe-creators-angels. Christ Himself did not suffer; Simon of Cyrene endured human torment for Him. Whoever believes in the original Mind that descended to earth, and denies faith in a crucified man, is saved and knows the economy of the unborn Father (Ch. 24, 3-7). 1510 Carpocrates and his followers taught that the world and everything in it was created by angels, inferior in comparison to the unborn Father. Jesus was born of Joseph and differed from other people only in that His pure soul well understood what it saw in the realm of the unborn Father. Therefore, strength was sent to her from the Father so that she could escape the creators of the world (angels) and ascend again to Him. The same thing happens with all the souls of people who are like Jesus. Representatives of this branch of Gnosticism boldly asserted that their own souls were even higher, more powerful than the souls of Christ and the great apostles Peter and Paul. The Carpocrats practiced sorcery, drank love potions, and led dissolute lives. To justify it, they said that good and bad deeds are such only in the human imagination, therefore it is permissible to do everything (Chapter 25). Cyrinthus taught that the world was created not by the first God, but by a lower power that did not even know about the Most High God. Jesus came, like other people, from Joseph and Mary and was distinguished from everyone else by justice, prudence and wisdom. After baptism, Christ descended on Him from the supreme first principle in the form of a dove. Before suffering, Christ withdrew from Jesus. Jesus suffered and rose again; Christ remained a stranger to suffering (Ch. 26: 1). The Ebionites accepted from the Gospels only what was written by Matthew and rejected the letters of the Apostle Paul. The prophetic scriptures were interpreted by them in an intricate manner. They performed circumcision, observed the rites of the Mosaic Law and adhered to the way of life of the Jews (Ch. 26, 2).. Nicolaitans were disciples of Nicholas, one of the seven deacons appointed by the apostles. They led depraved lives, teaching that there is nothing illegal in unchastity and eating things sacrificed to idols. They are also spoken of in the Apocalypse (Ch. 2.6; Contra haereses. Ch. 26.3). Kerdon taught that God, preached by the Law and the Prophets, is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, because He was known, but the Last is unknown; This one is just, and this one is good (27:1). Depending on Cerdon stands Marcion. He also distinguished God the Father from the God of the Old Testament. The latter, according to him, is the author of evil, seeks war, is fickle in His intentions and even contradicts Himself. Jesus comes from that Father who is higher than the Creator of the world. Christ appeared to the inhabitants of Judea in human form (Docetism), destroying the prophets, the Law and all the works of God who created the world. Marcion threw out from the Gospel of Luke the story of the Nativity of Christ and much more from the teachings and speeches of the Lord that did not fit his views. The heretic also cut down the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Salvation, according to Marcion, belongs to the souls only of those people who accept his teaching; the body cannot participate in salvation. Many undoubted sinners of the Old Testament, for example, Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians and all the nations who lived in depravity, were saved - as Marcion taught - by the Lord during His descent into hell. On the contrary, the righteous - Abel, Enoch, Noah and others - did not receive salvation because they did not believe the preaching of Christ and did not resort to Him for help (Ch. 27, 2-4). From these pillars of heresy, lesser-known leaders proliferated, accepting only one or another point of the teaching of the heresy leaders or adding to it something from other systems. Such are the leaders of the Encratites, descended from Saturninus and Marcion. They preached celibacy and abstinence from eating animals. Some of them, like Tatian, for example, denied the salvation of the primordial man Adam and declared marriage directly as corruption and fornication (Chapter 28). Barbelo-Gnostics recognized the existence of a never-aging superior zone named Barbelo. The origin of the higher members of the pleroma was a consequence of the fact that to this Barbelo the nameless Father wanted to reveal himself. From here came: Thought, Foreknowledge, Incorruptibility and Eternal Life. Contemplating their greatness, Barbelo produced from himself the light that is Christ. At the request of Christ, the Father also gave existence to the Mind and the Word. From the combination of Word and Thought came the Self-Generated One, to whom everything is subordinated. In the same way, the rest of the couples produced zones from themselves. The self-born, moreover, produced a perfect and true man and combined with him perfect knowledge, giving him at the same time an invincible strength with a virgin spirit. From the first angel, who was with the Only Begotten, came the Holy Spirit, which the heretics also call Wisdom and Prunikos. This one was the culprit of the existence of the world. He produced from himself a creation in which there was Ignorance and Insolence. And Ignorance has already created the firmament, angels, earth and everything that is on earth. It ruled the world in the Old Testament, declaring: “I alone am a jealous God, and besides Me there is no God” (Exodus 20:15; Isaiah 14:5–6; Contra haereses. Ch. 29). The Ophites placed the Father of all things at the head of the eons, who they called the First Man. He has a Son, a second man. Below them is the Holy Spirit, a female being. Below the Holy Spirit, the elements initially existed: water, darkness, depth and chaos. From the union of the Father and the Son with the Spirit, their only begotten son, Christ, appeared. These four constitute the holy Church, the highest group of aeons. From the wife of the Holy Spirit came the male-female power, called by the Ophites the left, Prunikos and Wisdom. It was she who laid the foundation for the existence of the world. Wisdom descended into the depths of the elements from which her body was created. She subsequently freed herself from her body, which became the visible sky. There are 7 aeons that rule heaven and earth: Yaldabaoth, Iao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Oreus and Astapheus. The first of them produced the Mind, curling in the form of a serpent; 1511 and everyone created man. The history of the Old Testament is presented by the Ophites as a gradual change of influences and the struggle of Yaldabaoth, on the one hand, and the serpent and his angels, on the other. To save people, Christ descended to earth, indwelling the man Jesus from the Virgin Mary. The cause of the Savior and the Ophites presented it docetically. The end of everything will come when the scattered parts of the upper light come together and return to the imperishable eon (Chapter 30). The Cainites taught that they were related to Cain, Esau, Korah, the Sodomites and other sinners of the Old Testament. These, according to the Cainites, all originated from a higher power. In its entirety, everything heavenly and earthly was resolved through Judas the traitor. The Creator of heaven and earth, called Hystera (ὐστέρα) among the Cainites, constantly fought against Cain and others like him in the Old Testament. Representatives of this group set the goal of their lives to destroy the affairs of Istera. And in practice this was expressed in impermissibly immoral behavior (Chapter 31, 1–2). Having completed his exposition of the systems of the Gnostics that preceded Valentinus, Irenaeus concludes that this alone means a lot for the refutation of heretics. For some of them, having learned that their views “come from such and such mothers, fathers and grandfathers,” may find the strength to return to the Church. Other people will also beware of joining heretical societies. Therefore, the discovery of the teachings of the Gnostics is already a victory over them. Their secrets are now open, and the fight against them is easier, just as it is easier to fight a known, already discovered fierce beast in a cleared forest. However, St. the father promises in the next book to present a more detailed analysis and refutation of the stated systems of the followers of Valentinus (Chapter 31, 3–4). Book two. From the second book and in reality follows a refutation of the Gnostics. Irenaeus examines here their false teaching on the basis of the data of reason, using the philosophical-dialectical method. First of all, St. the father of the dualistic view of God and the world that underlies all the errors of the heretics, which the Valentinians resolutely divided among themselves, presenting matter - kenoma - as an independent substance independent of God. Irenaeus proves the incorrectness and logical inconsistency of such views, contrasting them with the church teaching about the one Creator God, who created heaven, earth and everything in them, holding everything in His power. God is a perfect being; there can be no deficiency in Him. But if there is something outside of God, then He can no longer be called completeness (pleroma), notes St. Irenaeus, and does not contain everything; This means that He lacks this, outside of His existence. The absence, lack of something from God speaks of His imperfection, and then consistently leads to the denial of the very existence of God, for an imperfect God is not God. The Gnostic teaching about God, considered from the other side, leads to wickedness. God and the world, pleroma and kenoma exist together, outside each other. But what do they contain? There must be something third that unites them. Having accepted the third, we must also accept the fourth, which unites the third, second and first; and the fifth, uniting the fourth, third, second, first, etc. into infinity. The same is true in Marcion’s teaching about two gods, good and evil. There must ultimately be an innumerable number of gods ruling over innumerable worlds; countless pleromas and countless Depths (Bifos). Each god will rule his own world and not care about someone else's. On the other hand, people created by gods will and should each glorify their god; otherwise they will be convicted of apostasy, and they will undergo deserved punishment (Chapter 1). The teaching of the Gnostics about the creation of the world by angels (zones) is also absurd. Was this world created within that which is embraced by God, in His domain, or in someone else’s domain, located outside of God? – asks Irenaeus. If outside of God, then the incongruities we have already mentioned arise. If they say: “In His domain,” then how could it happen that the world was created against the will of God, by angels who are themselves subordinate to Him, or by anyone else, as if He either did not see everything that is in His domain, or did not know what would be done by the angels? But if the world was created not contrary to the will of God, but with His knowledge, then, obviously, the only reason for the existence of all things is the will of God... God is omnipotent and does not need anyone’s help. He Himself created everything with His Word, predetermining it in Himself in an ineffable and inconceivable way. “He created as He willed, giving consent to everything, assigning order and the beginning of creation, giving to spiritual beings a spiritual and invisible nature, to those above heaven - heavenly, to angels - angelic, to animals - animal, to swimming - adapted to water, living on land - adapted to land, and to all a nature suitable for them" (Chapter 2). But if the world was created by God, then one cannot, together with the Gnostics, call Him emptiness. God transformed the world in His thought; everything created by Him is a reflection of His perfections. Therefore, there can be no shortage in the world (Chapter 3). If we assume (with heretics) that this creation of God is only a shadow, emptiness (kenoma, μὴ ὄν), then, obviously, its producers also sin the same. Obviously, both the Depth of the Gnostics, together with Silence, are empty by nature (Chapter 4, 1). The Valentinians often got out of these difficulties in this way. They announced that the expressions “outside” and “inside” do not refer to local (spatial) distance, but to knowledge and ignorance (Chapter 4, 2). St. Irenaeus proves that such views on the pleroma and kenoma are no less untenable. Let us assume that kenoma is the same as ignorance. But where does this ignorance manifest itself? If in the pleroma itself, then it is obvious that the pleroma is imperfect, and in the light that the First Father possesses, there is some kind of deficiency; This light is not enough to illuminate the entire pleroma; there are dark, unlit places in it. No less incongruities arise if we assume that kenoma (ignorance) exists outside the pleroma. According to the teachings of the Gnostics, Christ, having formed His mother in essence, expelled her from the pleroma. On the assumption made, this would mean that He separated her from knowledge and created ignorance in her; that is, he turned out to be the culprit of ignorance. In the same way, we will have to admit that the Savior was in the dark every time he left the pleroma: to create Achamoth, find the lost sheep, etc. (Chapter 5). And in general, this view of heretics on gnosis, knowledge as the basis of being and all relationships, in particular at least between members of the pleroma itself, cannot be considered correct. The assumption that the lower zones do not know the higher ones and especially the First Father is absurd. How can it be that when they were in his area, they came from him? Animals even know their Creator. By calling on the name of the Lord, even before the Savior came to earth, people cast out evil spirits. This means that they too come to know God, but those zones that are good by nature turn out to be ignorant of their ruler. It is possible that God was unknown to the angels (eons, according to the teachings of the Gnostics) in His invisible essence; but His being and providential actions in relation to the entire creation could not be unknown to them (Chapter 6). The teaching of the Gnostics about emptiness, kenome, considered from the point of view of their view of the origin of its various parts, is untenable. Heretics, as is known, adhered to a partly Platonic view, according to which everything that exists in the world is a reflection, a similarity, of the eons of the pleroma (in Plato - ideas). Analyzing these views, St. Irenaeus, first of all, notes that it is not a great honor for God or the pleroma, eternal, unchangeable, to be like the temporary, transitory things of the world. Besides, there are too many parts and types of creations in the world. The number of eons (30), in any case, cannot correspond to the number of objects and phenomena of the world. Among people and animals, there is a wide variety of characters and properties. Some people are good, others are evil; some creatures are tame, others are wild; some are useful, others are harmful. Some live in water, others on land, and others in the air. If all these are images of the higher eons, then it is obvious that similar differences must exist among the latter. Meanwhile, the Gnostics do not allow such a distinction. In fact, between the creatures of the world and the aeons of the pleroma, says Irenaeus, not only is there no similarity, but they are by nature opposite to each other, like water and fire, light and darkness, etc. The things of the world are corporeal, complex, fleeting; eons, and according to the Gnostics, are spiritual, unlimited, immense (Chapter 7). One cannot affirm with the heretics that earthly things are shadows of things above. The things above, the eons, are spiritual, and the spiritual has no shadows; This constitutes a property only of corporeal objects that have matter. But let’s say, says St. Father, that spiritual things also have shadows. In this case, earthly objects must exist forever, just as the things above that give shadow are eternal (Chapter 8). Thus, no matter from which side we consider the inventions of the heretics about the pleroma and kenome, they turn out to be untenable (Chapter 8, 2). Therefore, it is necessary, without further ado, to adhere to the teaching about God - the Creator of the whole world, which the Church offers. This teaching is not only proclaimed in Scripture, preached by the Lord and the apostles and preserved by all Churches; it was accepted by the ancients, according to legend, from the first man; The Jews received reminders about him through the prophets; the pagans learned it through simple consideration of creation. Its truth is testified, therefore, even by people outside the Church. Meanwhile, the false teaching of the Gnostics, originating only from Simon the Magus or even later Valentinians, remains without evidence; and its representatives turn out to be worse than the pagans, blaspheming against their Creator (Chapter 9). It is, of course, impossible for heretics to seek confirmation of their views in Holy Scripture, although they try to do this based on the Lord’s parables, which are unclear in themselves, and by asking mysterious questions that confuse the inexperienced (Chapter 10). However, Irenaeus decided to postpone a detailed examination of the methods of the Gnostics in using the Holy Scriptures and the analysis of the texts they cited in their defense (Chapter 11), and proceeds to refuting particular points in the Gnostic teaching about the pleroma (Chapters 12–19). First of all, St. the father proves that even if we take the point of view of the Valentinians, it turns out that their thirty suffers, on the one hand, from a deficiency, on the other, from an excess. The disadvantage is as follows. The Gnostics include the First Father among the 30. Meanwhile, says Irenaeus, this cannot be done even from the point of view of their teaching, because the First Father, as unproduced by anyone, unborn, immense, incomprehensible, impassive, cannot have anything in common with the created, limited zones produced by him. But in this case, one member will no longer be enough in thirty; only 29 remain (Chapter 12, 1). However, this number also needs to be reduced. In syzygy with Depth, according to the teachings of heretics, Thought consists. Thoughts cannot exist without the one who thinks. She and the Depth must constitute, therefore not two, but only one being. But from a single and indivisible couple, only one creature can come into being, and not two, “so that it does not turn out to be different from the one who produced it.” And in this case, one being should be composed not only of Depth and Thought, but also Mind and Truth, and further - Word and Life, Man and Church, i.e. instead of eight, only four should be obtained (Chapter 12, 2). However, heretics do not strictly adhere to their view of the necessity of syzygy for the eons. Their Wisdom experiences passion and gives birth without union with her spouse. Thus, they allow the separate existence of members of one or another pair. However, this does not save their situation. All the same, their number of thirty should be reduced even with such an interpretation, since incompatible beings belong to it. Such are the Word and Silence. Everyone understands that they are opposite to each other. Where the word is spoken, there is no silence; where there is silence, there is no place for words. One thing must be eliminated from the pleroma. Again, therefore, the tridecimal is destroyed (Ch. 12, 3-6). The excess in her is holy. the father sees that in the Valentinian systems, for some reason Christ and the Holy Spirit, descended from the Only Begotten, and the Savior are not counted among the eons of the pleroma. In addition, the Limit in some systems is produced from the First Father, in others - from the Only Begotten. It looks like two separate eons. In total, therefore, there are not 30, but 33–34 members of the pleroma (Ch. 12.7–8). Further St. the father proceeds to a more detailed analysis of the Valentinian teaching about the aeons of the first eight and proves that the entire first row of them should be rejected, since the views of the Gnostics are logically untenable at this point as well. According to their teaching, Mind is produced by Depth and Thought. Meanwhile, even among people, the mind is, of course, the culprit of the existence of thought, and not vice versa. In addition, it is impossible in general to separate the mind, especially the divine, unlike the human, from its carrier, God, for God is “simple, uncomplicated, equal, always equal and similar to Himself, all being understanding, all spirit, all thought, all feeling, all reason, all hearing, all eye, all light and the whole source of all good” (Chapter 13. 1-7). This is also true in relation to the Word, which the Gnostics represented as produced from the Mind. God is all Mind and all Word. In Him everything is indivisible; Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the production of the Word as some kind of special act, in the likeness of human birth (Chapter 13, 8). The Valentinians also err regarding Life, saying that it was produced in sixth place, when it should, according to St. Irenaeus, put her before everything else, because God is Life, Incorruptibility and Truth. All His properties are only names of perfections that always exist in God. Therefore, no one can say that Mind is older than Life, for Mind itself is already life (Ch. 13, 9). As for the teaching of the Gnostics about the fourth pair of eons - Man and the Church, then, notes Irenaeus, the heretics themselves argue among themselves regarding it. Some say that the Word came from Man; others argue, on the contrary, that Man is from the Word. Thus, the absurdity of their teaching is revealed by themselves (Ch. 13, 10). The confusion in the views of the Gnostics and logical inconsistencies, according to Irenaeus, are explained in the fact that the principles of their views were borrowed from ancient comedians and philosophers. The Valentinians only replaced some names and put together their own system from many scraps. So, much earlier, their comedian Aristophanes in his “Theogony” produced Chaos from Night and Silence, from Night and Chaos - Love, from it Light, and from it the rest of the first generation of his gods. Then he spoke about the second series of gods and about the creation of the world and man. The Valentinians took almost entirely his teaching. They only put Depth and Silence in the place of Night and Silence, Mind in the place of Chaos, and the Word in the place of Love. Instead of the first row of gods, they came up with eons, and instead of the second gods they talk about the creations of the Mother. From it they produce the structure of the world and the creation of man (Ch. 14, 1). Their Depth can be found in the teaching of Thales of Miletus about water, the beginning of all things; and also in Anaximander, who represented the beginning of existence as the infinite, which contained everything in the form of a seed (Chapter 14, 2). They borrowed the doctrine of shadow and emptiness from Democritus and Epicurus; the doctrine of images and likenesses (mountain and earthly things) - from Democritus and Plato (Chapter 14, 3). That the Creator created the world from pre-existing matter was previously proclaimed by Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Plato (14, 4). Their false teaching that the Savior came from all the aeons, and that each of them put into him, as it were, its own color, can be found something similar in Hesiod’s Pandora (14, 5). The use and meaning of numbers was borrowed by the Gnostics from the Pythagoreans (14, 6). Choosing certain points from philosophers and, in general, composing their own system about the pleroma, heretics, according to St. Irenea, they did not provide any evidence why they do this. In fact, why did the zones arise, why is the first and primordial of everything eight, and not five, trinity, seven? Why exactly 10 eons came from the Word and Life, and not more or less; why from Man and Church – 12? Why is the entire pleroma divided into three parts: eight, ten and twelve? – Gnostics refer to some kind of world harmony or begin to list human passions. But all this concerns only secondary phenomena and can partly explain the existence of earthly creatures. The question is raised about the pleroma itself. Did the Father really create her without any plan or foresight? Such absurdity cannot be allowed. But then two assumptions remain: either the pleroma is a reflection of an even higher series of eons, another pleroma, or the thought of creation existed in God, who created the world. But if we accept the first explanation, then it is necessary to admit that for the second, higher pleroma there must also be a prototype in the third, for the third in the fourth, etc. From this point of view, the more Valentinian Basilides is right, recognizing 365 heavens, formed successively one from the other. However, why did he stop at this number? Why didn’t you take, for example, the number 4380 or even higher? Here the gradation must go to Infinity and, in essence, a real, satisfactory explanation of the origin of the pleroma is again not given. If we accept the first assumption that God created the pleroma according to a plan that had previously been established by Him, then why do the Gnostics not fully accept church teaching? It is much safer to recognize the truth from the very beginning, that is, that God the Creator, who created the world, is one God, and besides Him there is no other God, and that He received from Himself the pattern and form of created things (Ch. 14, 8 - 16, 4). Irenaeus finds no less irregularities and logical inconsistencies in the teaching of the Gnostics about the lower eons in comparison with the first eight. These inconsistencies are already revealed in the views on the origin of the members of the tridecimal. One of two things must be accepted: either the eons appeared together with their First Father, or they gradually flowed out of Him, in the likeness of the birth of people and animals. In the first case, it is necessary to recognize the existence of some independent substance from which all the eons were formed, except for the First Father. But it is absurd to allow the existence of a foreign entity within the pleroma. The second guess remains. But if the eons arose gradually from the Father, in the likeness of human birth, then they must all have one essence with Him, like people similar to each other, or lights kindled from the same light. However, the Gnostics cannot stand this idea of ​​equality. Some eons are involved in suffering, others are not involved, some are called younger, others - older. The Father is omniscient, but the rest, starting with the Word, already suffer from ignorance, and the lower an aeon is on the gradation ladder, the less it knows its First Father (Chapter 17). There are many inconsistencies among heretics in more specific points of their views on the lower eons. Their wisdom was in ignorance, fall and suffering. However, everyone knows that where there is no forethought and knowledge, there is no wisdom. One cannot attribute suffering to Wisdom, since it is of a spiritual nature (Ch. 18:1). How could a Thought also obtain a separate existence when it is presupposed only in someone, but by itself can never exist? Thought could not experience suffering. The doctrine that the parts of the visible world arose from its affects is also absurd. This is already the materialization of the spiritual. In addition, the search by Thought for the perfect Father, the desire to be with Him and understand His greatness, could not entail ignorance and suffering (as the heretics teach), but rather, on the contrary, should have led her to perfection, dispassion and truth, for she wanted to know a perfect being, and not an ordinary creature (Ch. 18, 2-7). The Valentinians’ idea of ​​a spiritual seed, which became the basis of world existence, and of the Demiurge, is also absurd. According to their views, the Mother conceived a seed in the image of the angels who appeared to her (surrounding the Savior). This seed was at first formless, formless, imperfect. Hence, according to St. father, we can conclude that, obviously, the angels, after whom the seed originated, are also formless, formless, and imperfect. However, the Gnostics do not dare to say this. The Demiurge could not help but know that the seed was placed in him by the Mother. This assumption places him much lower than the creatures he created, for they retain the ability of knowledge, which was allegedly absent from the creator. Further, the seed, according to the Gnostics, being clothed in matter, grew, received form and prepared to receive a perfect mind. When it was in the pleroma, near the source of being and light, it turned out to be imperfect, and when it fell into matter that was opposite to it in essence, which the heretics also represented as darkness, it unexpectedly received form and reached perfection. This is also absurd, according to Irenaeus (Ch. 19:1–7). Further St. the father is not involved in analyzing the particulars of the Valentinian teaching on the pleroma. According to him, what has already been said is enough to prove the inconsistency, fragility and absurdity of their teaching. Whoever wants to know whether sea water is salty does not need to drink the whole sea (Ch. 19.8). Irenaeus proceeds to analyze and proves the inconsistency (Ch. 20–28) of those references to Holy Scripture that the Valentinians made in support of the false doctrine of the pleroma. Heretics applied parables to their inventions, counting numbers, syllables and letters in words. Thus, the truth of the sufferings of the twelfth aeon, in their opinion, is proven by the falling away of the twelfth apostle, Judas, and the sufferings of Christ in the twelfth month. However, St. the father quite reasonably points out that a strict analogy cannot be drawn here. Judas finally fell away, without returning, from the presence of the apostles. Meanwhile, the twelfth aeon was restored and called back to the pleroma. Why, then, should Judas, the traitor of the Lord, pretend to suffer? After all, he (Judas) himself did not suffer. And in quantitative terms there is no similarity. Judas was the twelfth apostle, and zone, who suffered, was the thirtieth in the pleroma. The suffering of the Savior also has nothing in common with the suffering of the zone. The latter was subjected to decomposition and destruction. Christ, by His power, strengthened corruptible man and restored him to incorruption (Ch. 20). The reference of heretics to the twelve apostles as an image of the existence of the twelve aeons is also unsuccessful. It is strange, first of all, according to the thought of Irenaeus, that the number of apostles is applied by the Gnostics to the lowest group of aeons. Why, then, do the heretics not take into account the 70 apostles? Finally, why is Paul forgotten? In what image is this apostle given to us? - asks St. father (Ch. 21). In support of their teaching, the Valentinians also referred to the fact that Christ, being 30 years old, was baptized, and then suffered in the twelfth month; therefore, they concluded, there must be 30 aeons of pleroma and twelve; That's why the twelfth zone suffered. In contrast to the heretics, Irenaeus proves that Christ was baptized when He was not yet 30 years old, as the Evangelist Luke says (3:23); that He preached not for one year, but for three, at least as can be seen from the fact that He spent three Passovers in Jerusalem; that the Savior suffered not in the twelfth month, but in the first, as can be learned from the instructions of the Law of Moses. In the same way, Christ was not thirty years old during his suffering, but 44–45, that is, already in adulthood, as is typical for a teacher of the people (Chapter 22). 1512 It is impossible, contrary to the Valentinians, to see in the Gospel wife, who suffered from bleeding for 12 years, the image of the twelfth sufferer. There is also no complete analogy here. The wife was healed from suffering in her twelfth year, therefore, rather, in the preceding years of her life, one can see the image of the zone of suffering. But then this type (wife) should no longer be attributed to the twelfth, suffering eon, but to those lying above it, which, according to the Gnostics, were not subject to suffering. Why, then, do they only take this example? Why did the heretics neglect the Gospel story about the woman who suffered for 18 years (Luke 13:16), or about the paralytic who lay in bed for 38 years? There can be only one explanation: these examples do not fit their theory (Chapter 23). The proofs borrowed by the Valentinians from the number of letters and syllables are also absurd and untenable. They especially liked to refer to the Hebrew name of the Savior - Jesus, which, according to them, consists of six letters and expresses the “fullness of octets,” since the total sum of its letters, taken as numbers, is 888. St. Irenaeus poses the question: why do the Gnostics take only the Hebrew name and ignore the Greek name of the same Savior? Meanwhile, the word Σωτήρ (Hebrew Jesus, Russian Savior) contains only 5 letters, but its total sum is 1408.1 1513 However, the Hebrew name of the Savior, according to the testimony of Jewish scholars, contains only 2.5 letters, and not 6, as heretics think. In Holy Scripture you can find a lot of repeated numbers that are completely unsuitable for the interpretations and systems of the Gnostics. This is, for example, 5. The word Σωτήρ consists of 5 letters, also Πατήρ, Ἀγάπη, etc. The Savior blessed 5 loaves and fed 5 thousand people; He called 5 virgins wise and 5 foolish; 5 men were with the Lord during the Transfiguration, etc. (Chapter 24). Why do heretics take only the numbers that suit them and do not pay attention to others? This cannot be explained by anything other than arbitrariness. Such treatment of Holy Scripture, however, deserves every possible condemnation. With this method, you can extract evidence of any absurd propositions. The reason for the behavior of the Valentinians lies in their proud idea of ​​themselves as knowledgeable people. They justify the words of the apostle: “Knowledge puffs up, love edifies” (1 Cor. 8:1). They imagined themselves to be more perfect than God the Creator, and that is why they fell into error. Not everything can be comprehended by a person. Very much will forever remain hidden for him in this earthly life. Therefore, in order to avoid dangers, it is better to be content with what is clearly, accurately and definitely revealed in Holy Scripture, and not to dare to penetrate with your own mind into the mysteries revealed only to God alone. Such are, for example, questions about what God did before the creation of the world or how the Son of God was born of the Father (Ch. 25–26,28). As for the Scriptures in particular, they must be interpreted with great caution, also without relying only on your own mind. You cannot base your teaching on parables or, in general, places that allow for double understanding. It is necessary to proceed from the clear, precise, direct words of Christ, the prophets and apostles and from their point of view to explain the dark, allegorical (Chapter 27). Having finished analyzing the Valentinian teaching on the pleroma, St. Irenaeus proceeds to refuting their views on the history of kenoma, in particular, their anthropology in connection with eschatology. Heretics, as is known, distinguished three types of people: material, mental and spiritual. The spiritual ones are the Gnostics. They are higher than everyone in their substance, higher even than the Demiurge, for he has only a spiritual nature. The end of world life will consist in the fact that like will return to like: material people, uniting with matter, will be destroyed in fire; the souls of the righteous will move along with the Demiurge to the “middle place”; and pneumatics - in the pleroma, will rise above the seventh heaven. Irenaeus sees, first of all, a contradiction in the eschatological views of the Valentinians. The souls of the righteous, according to their teaching, go to the “middle place.” The reason for this migration, obviously, is precisely their righteousness. They get "middle place" as a reward for their life. The souls of the wicked perish in the fire. Again retribution for life. Meanwhile, spiritual people move into the pleroma regardless of whether they are righteous or wicked; only one of their substances is taken into account, the spiritual nature, which must unite with its own kind. According to St. father, one thing must be accepted: either righteousness saves a person, or nature. Both provisions are incompatible. If nature saves, then all souls, good and evil, must be saved; there is no need for righteousness and faith. If righteousness saves, then why do the Gnostics not participate in the salvation of people’s bodies when they participated in righteousness? There is only one way out of this contradiction: it is best to accept the church teaching about the resurrection of souls along with bodies and rewarding everyone according to his deserts (Chapter 29). Even more absurd is the teaching of heretics that they, as spiritual ones, must take a place above the spiritual Demiurge. In their minds, the Demiurge is also the Creator. Can the Creator really turn out to be lower than the creature? And what did the Gnostics themselves create to rise above the Demiurge? What heaven has approved? What land was founded? What luminaries were created? What rivers were made to flow? How can they be equal to the Creator of heaven, earth and everything that is on them; with the Creator of angels, archangels, all spiritual powers? The Valentinians claim that they will rise above the seventh heaven. Meanwhile, ap. Paul, by his own admission, was caught up only to the third heaven, to paradise, where he heard ineffable verbs (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Are the Gnostics superior to the apostle they reverence? (Chapter 30). In connection with the idea of ​​themselves as a higher breed of people, as is known, the moral views of the Valentinians stood. They taught that, as spiritual ones, everything was allowed to them; they even need to experience everything, good and bad; that in general such a difference does not really exist. Irenaeus examines these points. The need to experience any kind of activity is, first of all, in contradiction with the teaching of the Lord, Whom the Gnostics reverence as their Teacher. And with Him, not only the fornicator is guilty, but also the one who desires to commit fornication; not only a murderer, but even one who is angry with his brother. He commanded not only not to hate people, but also to love enemies; not only not to swear falsely, but also simply not to swear; to abstain, in general, not only from the department, but also from sinful thoughts (Ch. 32.1). If the Gnostics want to experience all activities, why, asks St. father, they do not study all the sciences - arithmetic, geometry, music, medicine, cattle breeding, navigation, etc.; or art - copper and marble, painting? Why is their activity necessarily reduced to pleasures, lust and vile deeds (32:2)? True, they also have special affairs, miracles associated with the art of magic. But with this they seduce only young or foolish people, counting on a momentary impression; and most importantly, their deeds do not bring any benefit to people. In any case, they cannot be compared with the miracles of the Lord, at least with the outstanding fact of His resurrection from the dead. And even now various miraculous acts are performed in the Church. For some members (of the Church) cast out demons, others have foreknowledge of the future, visions and prophetic gifts. Others heal the sick. “Even the dead rose again and stayed with us for quite a few years,” says St. Irenaeus. But all this is accomplished not with the help of magic, but through the grace of God, and not to deceive people, but for their benefit (Ch. 32, 3-5). The Gnostic teaching about the transmigration of souls is also absurd. The indisputable fact that souls do not remember anything of what happened to them before speaks against it. Meanwhile, even dreams are remembered by people upon awakening. Why is the transmigration of souls necessary? If for improvement, then what kind of talk can there be about it, when everything that happened before is forgotten, as if dying? Of course, this oblivion cannot be attributed to the body, which seems to suppress the soul. The body is not stronger than the soul. It can weaken the activity of the latter, but it is unthinkable that it completely destroys it. The activity of the prophets speaks against this assumption. Moving from an ecstatic state to an ordinary one, they remembered everything that happened to them (Chapter 33). That souls not only continue to exist without passing from body to body, but also retain the same character of the body that they had in union with it, the Lord showed this very clearly in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It says here that the rich man, being in hell, remembered Lazarus, Abraham, his brothers who remained on earth, etc. (Ch. 34, 1). This, in fact, ends Irenaeus’ refutation of the teachings of the Gnostics. As we see, he had in mind, first of all, the followers of Ptolemy and Mark. However, the denunciation of the Valentinians can serve as a denunciation of all such heretics. What has been said about their pleroma, the First Father, the Demiurge, can equally be attributed not only to Ptolemy, but also to Marcion, Simon, Menander, Saturninus, and Basilides. The denunciation of the moral views of the Valentinians can be applied to Simon, Carpocrates and others. “With the refutation of the followers of Valentinus,” Irenaeus rightly says, “the whole multitude of heretics was overthrown” (Chapter 31, 1; see in general this entire chapter). However, St. the father considers it necessary to add a few more words to refute possible objections to the church teaching about one God (monotheism is an idea that runs through the entire second book “Against Heresies”). The views of Basilides about 365 heavens necessarily lead to the recognition of a multitude of gods, to the point of infinity, and through this they are already overthrown (35, 1). The assertion of some Gnostics that the prophets uttered their prophecies at the inspiration of various gods is also untenable. This idea is refuted by the fact that all the prophets preached one God and Lord, Creator of heaven and earth (35.2). The fact that many names are used in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament in the appendix to the Deity cannot speak against monotheism: Sabaoth, Eloe, Adonai, etc. All these are names not of different gods, but of the same one; through them, according to Irenaeus, one God and Father is indicated, containing everything and giving existence to everything (35:3). Having finished with these objections, St. the father considers himself entitled to declare: “I think (it is now) sufficiently proven that there is one God and Creator of everything” (Ch. 35.4). Book three. Having completed the analysis of the teachings of the Valentinians from the point of view of the data of reason, Irenaeus did not, however, consider it possible to limit himself to this, but decided to present to his friend also evidence from Holy Scripture (Bk. II, 35, 4; III, preface). This is what St. does. father, starting from the third book. But first he has to devote several chapters (1–5) to the defense of those sources on the basis of which he now intends to refute heretics and clarify the truth of church teaching. We learned about the arrangement of our salvation, says Irenaeus, from the apostles* who first preached orally, then, by the will of God, handed down the Gospel to us in the scriptures, as the future foundation and pillar of our faith. Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew while living among the Jews. Mark conveyed what was preached by Peter; Luke expounded what Paul preached. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, reclining on His chest, also wrote the Gospel during his stay in Ephesus. The preaching of the apostles, recorded in the Gospels, began after the descent of the Holy Spirit on them on the day of Pentecost. Therefore, it bears the stamp of complete, “perfect knowledge” (Chapter 1). Meanwhile, the Gnostics, as we have already noted, 1514 arbitrarily addressed and interpreted the Holy Scriptures. They cut down some books and added new ones to replace them. Often heretics accused the Scriptures as if they were incorrect, lacked authority, and were different in presentation. The Apostles (as if) mixed something from the Law into the words of the Savior; and the Lord Himself spoke sometimes from the Demiurge, sometimes from the “middle,” sometimes from the pleroma. Both the Savior and His disciples applied themselves, according to the Gnostics, in their preaching to the views of the people. When the heretics were referred to Church Tradition and denounced on the basis of it, they referred to their “tradition” that was preserved in their communities. Having noted this (Chapter 2), Irenaeus considers it necessary to establish the correct view of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and indicate normal principles for the interpretation of the first. The basis of everything is St. the father lays down the tradition of the apostles. A characteristic feature of the latter is its transmission through a succession of bishops. The Apostles communicated to the primates of the Churches - their disciples - the entire fullness of Christ's teaching, leaving nothing secret or hidden. These in turn passed it on to their successors, and so the word of truth is kept pure and perfect, passed on from generation to generation; but only in the Church. Anyone who wants to get acquainted with Tradition only needs to contact the primate of any of the Churches, especially the most ancient ones founded by the apostles, and he will receive comprehensive information. As an example, St. Irenaeus lists all the Roman bishops (after the apostles): Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evarest, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Pius, Hyginus, Anicetus, Sotyrus and his contemporary Elevther. Through them, the preaching of truth reached the times of Irenaeus intact. 1515 The Smyrna and Ephesian churches in Asia Minor are also the guardians of the apostolic tradition. In Smyrna, the disciple of John the Theologian, Polycarp, especially stood out. St. was also familiar with him. Irenaeus. Therefore, he (Irenaeus) can be considered the keeper of the apostolic tradition (Ch. 3–4). 1516 And that the apostles and Christ expounded their teaching without adapting to the listeners, St. the father proves it this way. Every adaptation is a mixture of truth and falsehood. But is it conceivable that perfect Truth (Christ) would allow lies? These concepts are as incompatible as shadow and light. And in reality, was the Savior’s preaching to the Jews about Himself as the Son of God, or the appeals of the apostles to the pagans that they should abandon the worship of wood and stones, for these are not true gods, an adaptation? Such speeches went against the ingrained ideas of the listeners (Chapter 5). Irenaeus does not yet go further in discussing the sources of Christian doctrine. And he goes straight to proof on the basis of Holy Scripture of the basic truths of Christianity, rejected or distorted by the Gnostics. First (Ch. 6–15) he substantiates in detail the church teaching about one God, the Creator of the whole world. An analysis of many passages from the Psalter, the prophet Isaiah, and Genesis gives St. the father has the right to put forward the indisputable position that the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament does not know and does not call anyone else God and Lord other than “God the Father and His Son, who received from His Father dominion over all creation” (Chapter 6, 1-2). True, sometimes in Scripture (Ps. 95:5; 80:10, etc.) “gods” (plural) are mentioned; but this name does not indicate the eons of the pleroma, but idols, and therefore is used in an improper sense (Chapter 6, 3, 5). Angels, archangels, thrones and dominions were also created by the Most High God through His Word. Therefore, again there can be no talk of their equality with their Creator. These are the works of God. And “what is created is different from the Creator, and what is created is different from the Creator.” There is nothing like eons in the church teaching about angels (Chapter 8). The Gospels provide especially much evidence in favor of monotheism: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. St. Irenaeus sees here on almost every page an indication of the one God and His Son, who came to save the world. “One and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who promised through the prophets to send a forerunner and make His salvation visible” (Ch. 9:1). “One and the same God, preached by the prophets and proclaimed in the Gospel, and His Son, who is from the fruit of David’s womb” (9:2). “It was not Christ who temporarily descended on Jesus (as the Gnostics teach), and there is not another Christ, but another Jesus; but the Word of God, the Savior of all, the Ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, who took flesh and was anointed by the Father with the Spirit, became Jesus Christ” (Ch. 9, 3). One God, who through the coming of His Son revealed to people a new economy of freedom, a new Testament, was proclaimed by the righteous Simeon and Anna (10:5). Mostly, the doctrine of the unity of the Divine is clearly presented by St. John at the beginning of his Gospel (Irenaeus analyzes in detail the prologue of this Gospel - Chapter 11, 1-6). Even the Gnostics cannot object to this sermon. For the reliability of the Gospels is so great that the heretics themselves “bear witness to them” and refer to them in support of their views, although not all the Gospel stories are accepted by them (Ch. 11:7). There are not and cannot be more or less existing Gospels, according to St. Irenea. Four countries of the world; four winds. The apocalyptic cherubim (Rev. 4:7) had four faces: a man, an eagle, a calf and a lion. This is a symbolic indication of the four sides in the person and activity of Christ: His royal ministry (lion), priestly dignity (calf), manifestation according to humanity (man) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (eagle). Accordingly, there should be and are only four Gospels. One conveys the original, effective and glorious birth of Christ from God the Father (royal dignity - in John). The other is of a priestly nature (Luke). Matthew announces the human birth of the Savior. And Mark begins with the prophetic Spirit coming from above to people. That is why in the history of house-building there are four periods: 1) from Adam to the flood; 2) from the flood to Moses; 3) from Moses to Christ and 4) renewing man and shortening the entire period from Christ (Ch. 11, 8). Hence, only the information given in the existing Gospels should be considered reliable. Outside of them there is no true teaching about Christ. However, one cannot arbitrarily shorten or curtail what is said there. Therefore St. Irenaeus calls everyone vain, ignorant and impudent who increase or decrease the number of Gospels, like Marcion, for example, who truncates the Gospel of Luke; Alogues who reject the Gospel of John, or Valentinians who accept the fifth “Gospel of Truth.” Such people all fall into unforgivable sin (Ch. 11:9). But not only the Gospels preach one God. The same is true in the teaching of the apostles, as set forth in the book of Acts. Peter in his speeches: on the day of Pentecost, before the elders, at the red doors of the church, he did not say that “one Christ suffered and rose again, and the other flew up on high and remained unaffected by suffering,” but, on the contrary, convinced the Jews that “one and the same God the Father and Christ Jesus, risen from the dead; and he preached faith in Him to those who did not believe in the Son of God and proved from prophecies that Christ, whom God promised to send, He sent in Jesus, whom the Jews crucified, and God raised again” (Ch. 12:1-6). The Apostle preached the same sermon to Cornelius and the pagans who had gathered around the latter. He did not say that one God was Jewish and the other Christian, although this was safe for him in view of the absence of Jews. On the contrary, he argued that it is one and the same God, in whom the pagans vaguely believed, and the One whom the Apostle now preaches to them (Ch. 12:7). Likewise Philip (Acts. 8 ch.), Paul in Damascus, in the Areopagus, in Lystra, the first martyr Stephen before his death and all the other apostles “proclaimed one and the same God, the Creator of all, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the God of Glory” (12, 8-11). And nowhere can one find among them a teaching about the opposition of the Old and New Testaments. On the contrary, the idea is clear everywhere that “the law of Moses and the grace of the New Testament, both in accordance with the times, were given for the benefit of the human race by one and the same God” (Ch. 12:12). And that the apostles did not adapt to their listeners and proclaimed only the truth, this is loudly evidenced by the facts of the martyrdom of many of them. “Those who gave up their souls even to death for the Gospel of Christ, how could they speak to people in accordance with the opinion ingrained among the latter?” (Ch. 12,13). . . Nor can a distinction be made between the testimonies of the apostles. You cannot put some above, others below, recognize some, discard others. All apostles are equal in their speeches and messages. Therefore, those (Gnostics) who prefer Paul to all other evangelists are wrong, as if all mysteries were revealed to him only. The apostle himself puts those who think this way when he says that the same God assisted Peter in his apostleship to the circumcision and himself to the pagans (Gal. 2:8). Or even better: “Whether I or they, this is how we preach, and this is how you believed” (1 Cor. 15:11). And was it in vain that the Lord Himself sent first 12, then 70 disciples to preach? Didn't they know the whole truth? (Chapter 13). On the other hand, those heretics who do not recognize Paul’s apostolic dignity are also wrong. They go against the direct evidence of the book of Acts, which clearly states that Paul was chosen to serve by Christ Himself, who miraculously appeared to him on the way to Damascus (Acts 9, 22.26; Contra haereses. III, 15.1-2). There is no reason to reject or curtail the Gospel of Luke (as Marcion does). The evangelist was Paul's constant companion, as evidenced by his detailed story in the book of Acts about the travels of the great apostle. And Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians calls Luke his “beloved” (Col. 4:14). Obviously, the latter was taught by the Apostle of Languages ​​and was authorized by him to convey the Gospel to us, concludes Irenaeus (14:1). And the Gnostics themselves, accepting much of Luke’s gospel, testify against themselves. One thing is necessary: ​​either reject the entire Gospel, or accept everything. Heretics, accepting part, thereby recognize the authority of the evangelist and therefore commit themselves to accepting his gospel in its entirety (Ch. 14:3). With this statement of the equal authority of all the apostles, Irenaeus ends his evidence from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in favor of the truth of the church idea of ​​​​monotheism. Further St. the father proceeds to expound (Ch. 16–24) on the basis of Holy Scripture the church teaching about Christ and the work of salvation accomplished by Him (Christology). The Gnostics, as we have already noted, distinguished Jesus from Christ, the Savior and the Only Begotten. They represented the last three as eons (different from each other). Jesus, in their views, was only a vessel into which the heavenly Christ dwelt. The heretics presented the Incarnation of the Lord and His suffering docetically. The Christ above, as they taught, did not suffer. Only the man Jesus suffered torment, and Christ withdrew from him during his suffering. Irenaeus, first of all, objects to the heretics regarding their separation of Jesus from Christ, the Savior and the Only Begotten, and the last three from each other. Analysis of relevant passages from the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark, the speech of Simeon the God-Receiver and the epistles of St. Paul (mainly to the Romans) and John are given by St. the father has the right to put forward the position that the Holy Scripture of the New Testament “does not know another Son of Man except the one born of Mary and who suffered, (does not know) and Christ, who abandoned Jesus before suffering. But he knows that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born, and that He Himself suffered and rose again” (Ch. 16, 5). Jesus was the Christ, whom Simeon held, blessed as the Most High, whom the shepherds saw, glorified as God, whom John, while still in his mother’s womb, while He was in the womb of Mary, recognized as Lord and greeted by leaping, to whom the wise men, seeing, bowed, brought gifts and, prostrating themselves before the eternal King, departed another way” (16:4). In a word, Jesus, Christ, Savior, Only Begotten are just different names for the same incarnate Son of God. The Apostle John called those who did not recognize such church teachings antichrists and recommended that believers continue to stay away from such people (Chapter 16). True, Holy Scripture also teaches about the descent upon Jesus during baptism; but about the descent not of the heavenly Christ, but of the Holy Spirit; the same Spirit, which God promised to pour out on Christians in the Old Testament, with the speech of whose message the Lord consoled the disciples before His sufferings and which on the day of Pentecost was actually poured out on the apostles, and now through Christ is poured out on all believers (Chapter 17). Irenaeus also proves through an analysis of Holy Scripture that both the incarnation of the Lord and His suffering were not imaginary, illusory. “Son of God,” says St. father, - having incarnated and become man, again began a long series of human beings and briefly (in compendio) granted us salvation, so that what we lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God, we again received in Christ Jesus. For it was impossible for a man who had once been defeated and perished through disobedience to recreate himself and receive the reward of victory; It was also impossible for anyone who had fallen into the power of sin to receive salvation. The Son did both, who is the Word of God, proceeding from the Father, who became incarnate and descended even to death and completed the economy of our salvation” (Ch. 18:1-2). Christ “united man with God. For if man had not defeated the human enemy, then the enemy would not have been legally defeated. And again, if God had not granted salvation, we would not have it securely. And if a person had not united with God, he could not have become a participant in incorruption... For how could we be partakers of His adoption as sons, if we had not again received from Him through the Son fellowship with Him, if His Word, having become flesh, had not been united with us? So, those who say that He appeared fictitiously and was not born in the flesh and did not become truly man, to this day are still under the ancient condemnation, giving dominion to sin, since, in their opinion, death has not yet been defeated” (Chapter 18, 7). In Christ two natures were united - Divine and human. He was not just a man born of Joseph, but true God, born of the Father, and true man, born of a Virgin. Otherwise, we could not have achieved salvation, says Irenaeus, if the Word of God had not become man, and the Son of God the son of man (19, 1; 20, 1-2). In the Old Testament it was predicted about Christ as true God and at the same time true man. Moses, Isaiah, Joel, Amos, Habakkuk, Daniel and others prophesied about Him (Irenaeus cites these prophecies in detail - Ch. 20.4; 21). They clearly proclaimed that the Savior “had exclusively before everyone a glorious birth from the Most High Father and that He also experienced birth from a Virgin... And that He was an ugly man (this is how Irenaeus understands Isaiah’s prophecy about Christ - 53.8) and subject to suffering, sat on a colt, took vinegar and gall to drink, was despised by the people and even descended to death; and that He is also the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, beautiful in appearance, the mighty God, coming on the clouds, the Judge of all - all this the Scriptures prophesied about Him” (Ch. 19, 2). The teaching about Christ as true God and true man is especially clearly presented in Isaiah in the words: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14 - Irenaeus analyzes this text in detail, defending the LXX translation along the way - in contrast to Theodotion, who distorts the meaning of this prophecy - see: Contra haereses. III, 21, 1–6). And in fact, Christ, who came to earth, was true God and true man, as the Scriptures of the New Testament testify to this. The divinity of the Son was already proved by Irenaeus at the beginning of this book. Therefore, their main attention now turns to confirmation from Holy Scripture of the teaching about the true human nature of the Savior. The Gospels clearly show that Christ experienced everything that is characteristic of man. He was born of a virgin woman, he was hungry, fasting for 40 days, he ate from the fruits of the earth, he was tired on the way (John 4:6), he cried over Lazarus; Blood and water flowed from His pure ribs (22.1–2). St. Luke indicates all the ancestors of the Savior according to humanity, up to the 72nd generation inclusive (22, 3). The truth of the suffering of the God-man, in particular, is especially clearly demonstrated by the messages of St. Paul (Ch. 18, 1–3). And the Lord Himself, long before His death, prepared His disciples for the idea that the Son of Man needed to go to Jerusalem, suffer a lot from the priests, be rejected and crucified, and rise on the third day (Matthew 16:21). He exhorted those who believed in Him to take up their cross and follow Him. That is why Christians go to martyrdom for the name of the Savior. If Christ had not suffered at all or had only imaginary suffered, how could He have called for imitation of Himself? Is it possible to allow deception on His part: to call others to imitate what did not happen? And what would be the significance then of martyrdom for His name (Ch. 18: 4-6)? Irenaeus concludes his Christology with an analysis of the false teaching of Tatian, who claimed that salvation in Christ extends only to the descendants of Adam, without affecting him himself. On this occasion, the Holy Father has to briefly outline the history of the economy in the Old Testament and indicate the meaning and fruits that resulted from the redemptive feat of Christ. Adam's crime consisted of disobedience to the will of God. He fell, deceived by the devil. After the Fall, the first man felt shame, humbled himself and repented before God. In view of all this, the Lord did not place a curse on him, as on the serpent or people who violated (in addition to original sin) the will of God with immoral acts (for example, Cain). However, God did not leave the first couple without punishment, “so that they would not completely perish, having been cursed by God, and would not begin to despise God, remaining without reproach.” Adam was expelled from paradise and removed from the tree of life. Man became mortal. This, however, was also reflected in God’s mercy. If people remained immortal, then there would be no end to sin. Death puts an end to sin, putting an end to it through the destruction of the flesh. When the Son of God appeared on earth, He saved Adam first of all. This was natural. It was necessary to free first the one who first fell into the enemy's net. Leaving Adam in the power of the devil and saving his descendants would mean the same thing if the children of captives were freed from slavery, and their parents, who themselves were captured, remained in captivity. Finally, if Adam had not been saved, then the Lord would have been defeated by the devil, and the latter’s evil would have surpassed the will of God. In Adam we all received salvation. Irenaeus defines this salvation as the restoration (recapitulatio) of a person to the state in which he was before sin. The fruits of such restoration were the destruction of the power of the devil over people, the abolition of death and the granting of life, for which man was created (Chapter 23). In the last chapter, Irenaeus examines Marcion’s false teaching about two gods - the good one who saves people (in the New Testament), and the evil one who only judges them (in the Old Testament). The Holy Father says that here the heretic falls into contradiction with the true concept of God. For God is only good, not punishing people for crimes and vices, unjust and unwise. On the other hand, a just God turns out to be evil only if He does not show mercy. In the first case He lacks justice, in the second He lacks goodness. But a lack is already an imperfection. And an imperfect person cannot be God. Therefore, even Plato, the philosopher, is more pious than the heretics, for he recognized the same God as both just and good (Ch. 25:1-6). Irenaeus ends the third book with the wish that the heretics would not remain in the hole that they dug for themselves, but would turn to the Church of God, and that Christ would be formed in them, and they would know the Creator and Maker of this universe, the one true God and Lord of all (25:7). Book Four. In the previous book, Irenaeus based himself mainly on the testimony of the apostles. Now St. the father decided to supplement his evidence with “the words of the Lord” (Bk. III, 24, 7; IV, preface, § 1). By these “words” he understands, first of all, in the proper sense, the sayings of Christ; and on the other hand, everything that was said under the influence of the Holy Spirit by Moses and other prophets in the Old Testament (Book IV. Ch. 2-3). The theme of most of Book IV is the question of the relationship of the New Testament to the Old. The Gnostic heretics presented the God of the Old Testament as completely different and unlike the God of the New Testament; and the Testaments themselves are the complete opposite of each other. Valentinia was not taught that the Creator of the world and God in the Old Testament was, in fact, the Demiurge, a created being, inferior in comparison with the First Father. But this point of view reached particular development in Marcion. According to him, in the Old Testament an evil god acted, while in the New Testament he acted as a good and merciful one. This explains the difference in the nature of the two Testaments. The God of the New Testament, as well as the Father of all, was completely unknown before the coming of Christ. In support of their views, the heretics referred to some passages of St. Scriptures; pointed out that according to church teaching, Christ, who descended to earth, abolished the prescriptions of the Old Testament Law and thus, as it were, destroyed it; they talked a lot about the sins of the righteous of the Old Testament and some of the actions of the people of the ancient world, who revealed (as if) the influence of an evil god (for example, the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh), etc. All this was what Irenaeus had in mind (chap. 1, 33, 2–3) when compiling the fourth book “Against Heresies.” He begins his presentation with evidence (Chapters 1–2) from Holy Scripture that the Creator of heaven and earth is the true God and that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself recognized this Creator as His Father. Hence there is one author of the Old and New Testaments - God the Father. David says: “My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth” (Ps. 123:8). Isaiah exclaims: “Thus says the Lord God, who created the heavens, who established the earth and what is in it” (Isaiah 42:5). And our Lord confesses: “I glorify You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21 - Against heresies. IV, 1-2; see other texts of Holy Scripture there). Having established his general position, Irenaeus proceeds to analyze the grounds that the heretics put forward in favor of their views and, above all, the Gnostics’ references to Holy Scripture (Ch. 2–7). The Bible says: “Heaven is the throne of God, and earth is His footstool.” On the other hand, however, it is said that “heaven and earth will pass away” (Luke 21:33). If the last expression is true, then, according to the Gnostics, with the “passing” of heaven and earth, God seated on them must also pass away. But in this case, He cannot be equated with the always abiding Almighty, or the First Father. In refutation of the heretics, St. Irenaeus notes that they imagine too materially the “seat” of God; so is the “passing over” of heaven and earth. God is a spiritual Being, and one cannot think that He sits like a man. On the other hand, when Scripture speaks of the “passing away” of heaven and earth, it means only a change in image or form (1 Cor. 7:31), and not complete destruction. But if heaven and earth really disappeared completely, is it possible on this basis to conclude that God’s existence with them ceased? God always abides, regardless of His creation (Ps. 101, 25. 28; Against heresies. IV, 3). In Scripture, further, Jerusalem appears to be “the city of the great King,” the God of the Old Testament, according to the Gnostics. At the same time, it is said that in the New Testament the city will be “forsaken.” Heretics also see in this an indication of the only temporary existence and actions of the God of the Old Testament. St. Irenaeus agrees that Jerusalem had only a temporary purpose. It began with David, just as the Law began with Moses, and, having fulfilled the “measure” assigned to it by God, it ceased to exist as a spiritual center. But this nature of its existence was established by God during the very creation of Jerusalem, as Isaiah testifies (1:8). Therefore, from the fact of his abandonment one cannot draw the same conclusions as the Gnostics do; just as one cannot demand that fruits not be removed from a grape stem or branch on the grounds that they are creations of God. The fruiting stem has fulfilled its purpose - and remains empty. Not only is Jerusalem temporarily abandoned, but the image of the whole world must pass away with the coming of the Lord. However, it does not follow from this that God will cease to exist (Chapter 4). The Lord said in the Gospel: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whomever the Son chooses to reveal the Son” (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22). The heretics put this passage as follows: “No one knew the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and to whom the Son chose to reveal Him”; and they explain (Gnostics) that the true God was unknown before the coming of our Lord and that the God proclaimed by the prophets is not the Father of Christ (6:1). St. Irenaeus notes in refutation of the heretics that if Christ really did not exist before His coming to earth and God had not yet communicated true knowledge about Himself, then one can only investigate the reason for such carelessness of the Father, but one cannot destroy our faith in the Creator (6: 2). This text does not speak in favor of heretics. The Lord teaches here that the word of God is always with the Father. Therefore, he knows Him better than anyone. For people, God is directly incomprehensible. The Son communicates knowledge about Him in His revelation. But the latter is comprehended by those to whom the Son, according to His will, gives understanding of Him, for God is not known without God (6:3-4). It is also not true that God was unknown in the Old Testament. On the contrary, the Scriptures testify that He is revealed in His creation, through the Law and the Prophets; Abraham confessed Him. Therefore, Christ, the Son of God, was recognized on earth by Simeon the God-Receiver, Mary - His Mother, and even by demons and the devil. And the Gnostics say about themselves that they have been given the knowledge of God. Why couldn’t others know Him? (Ch. 6–7). Next, Irenaeus proceeds to analyze (Ch. 8–26) the opinion of the Gnostics that the Son of God, having descended to earth, abolished the Old Testament Law (from here the heretics, as we noted, concluded that the Old and New Testaments were opposed and the gods that reigned here and there). The Holy Father distinguishes in the Old Testament: 1) the natural law and the decalogue, 2) the ritual law of Moses and 3) the tradition of the elders. In the beginning there was only natural law. Its content is the same, according to Irenaeus, with the ten chapters. It was given not for the sake of God, of course, but for people; so that they follow the right path in their worship of God, do not deviate into serving idols and prepare to accept Christ (Ch. 14; 15). “The law was thus both a means of teaching and a prophecy of the future” (15:1). The main content of the decalogue was the commandments of love for God and neighbors (12:3; 13:4). When the Jews “decided to make a calf and turned their hearts back to Egypt, desiring to be slaves instead of freemen,” when they refused to serve the true God and fulfill His initial commands, “then they received,” says Irenaeus, “another service in accordance with their wishes” (15:1). They were given the ritual law of Moses. The latter's detailed instructions made the people subordinate to him slaves. This is the covenant of slavery (15.1; 16.5). His goal was to admonish the Jews (16:5), to accustom them to complete obedience to God. Much here was caused by the rudeness and disobedience of the people, as the Savior noted (Matthew 19:7,8 - Against heresies. IV, 15:2); or it had a representative meaning, for example, circumcision (Ch. 16:1), the celebration of the Sabbath (16:2), Levitical service, sacrifices (Ch. 17). However, even in the Old Testament, the Lord explained the true meaning of the instructions of the Mosaic Law. He, through the prophets, “demanded not sacrifices and burnt offerings, but faith, obedience and righteousness for the salvation of people.” He cried out that “he wants mercy more than sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6 - see for more details: Against heresies. IV, 17). Thus, even then the Law distinguished its essence from its external forms, which obviously had only temporary and educational significance. But not everyone understood this. There were also people who aggravated the ritual prescriptions and added to the Mosaic Law what was false and even contrary to it. Others were canceled or interpreted in their own way. These are the Pharisees who, along with the Mosaic Law, established the obligatory tradition of the elders (12:1). The New Testament brought to earth by Christ is, of course, more perfect than all those previously existing. This is the law of freedom. The Lord gave the human race incomparably greater grace and abundant gifts (Ch. 9 – 11). Therefore, it is natural that he abolished many things in the Old Testament Law. But what did this cancellation concern? According to the teachings of St. Irenaeus, the Lord completely abolished the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees’ decrees, which contradicted the Law and distorted its meaning. He put the Pharisees to shame in his speech: “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses...” (Matt. 23 chapter - Against heresies. Chapter 12, 4); expelled the merchants from the church (Against heresies. Ch. 2, 6), etc. He also abolished the external prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, given due to the rudeness and disobedience of the Jews and which had only a temporary, educational and representative meaning: circumcision, the celebration of the Sabbath (16:1), bloody sacrifices (18:2). However, the essence of the requirements of the Mosaic Law has largely been preserved; Only the form and appearance were abolished. The priestly service remains, as do the holidays (16:1). “And it is not the offerings that have been abolished at all, for there are offerings there (in the Old Testament), there are offerings here (in the New); there are sacrifices among the people (Jewish), there are sacrifices in the Church (Christian); but only the appearance has been changed, since the offering is made not by slaves, but by freemen... The Jews dedicated tithes of their estates to Him; and those who have received freedom designate all their property for the purposes of the Lord” (18:2). As for the commandments of the Decalogue, in this regard the Lord not only did not cancel anything, but even completed it, as He Himself says (Matthew 5:17) and as can be seen from His Sermon on the Mount. “Instead of “thou shalt not commit adultery,” Christ commanded not even to have lust; instead of “do not kill” - do not be angry; instead of giving tithes, share all your property with the poor and love not only your neighbors, but also your enemies; and not only to be generous givers, but to give freely to those who take away ours” (Ch. 13, 3). “He expanded and multiplied the natural, noble and common commandments, unconditionally and generously granting people through adoption to know God the Father and to love Him with all their hearts and to follow His Word without resistance, refraining not only from evil deeds, but also from desires for them... He increased the fear of God, for sons should fear the Father more and have greater love for Him than slaves” (Ch. 16, 5). That is why Irenaeus says that “all natural commandments are common to us and to them (the Jews); From them they received beginning and origin, and from us - increase and replenishment. For to obey God, to follow His word, and most of all to love Him and your neighbor as yourself—and man is another man’s neighbor—and to abstain from every evil deed and the like are common to both Testaments, and this shows one and the same God” (Tl. 13:4). This community and unity of both Testaments is also clearly visible when comparing the contents of both. In essence, the main subject of speech in both the New and Old Testaments is the sermon about the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, who came to earth, Christ our Savior. The prophets announced in their speeches all the most important moments from the life of the Lord. “The Son of God is scattered everywhere in His Scriptures: now as talking with Abraham, with Noah, now as seeking Adam, now bringing judgment on the Sodomites, now as appearing and showing Jacob the way, now speaking with Moses from the bush. It is even impossible to list the cases in which Moses portrays the Son of God. He knew the day of His suffering and figuratively predicted it under the name of Easter... And not only indicated the day, but also the place and limit of time and the sign of the sunset... He also revealed His coming, saying: the prince will not be lacking from Judah... (Deut. 32.6). He makes it clear that the Word... appears to be hanging on a tree and they do not believe in Him...” (Ch. 10:20). David and other prophets also spoke a lot about Christ (Ch. 11, 20). “How could they testify,” asks Irenaeus, “if they were not from the same Father?” (Ch. 10.1). And it was not only in speeches that Christ was proclaimed. God the Father gave directions to Him in visions. The Word appeared and spoke to Moses (Ex. 33). Elijah, in the “voice of a still calm,” knew the coming of quiet and peaceful times of the Savior’s kingdom in the future (2 Kings 19). Ezekiel was revealed in a vision “the likeness of the Glory of the Lord” (Ezek. Ch. 2). The Son of God appeared to Ananias, Azariah, and Mishael in the cave of the Chaldeans (Dan. 3rd chapter). Daniel saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and approaching the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7 - Against heresies. IV, 20, 8-11). The Lord revealed himself to the prophets and in actions. Hosea (Hos. Ch. 1) took a harlot wife, prophesying that “the whole earth, that is, the people living on the earth, will commit fornication from the Lord, and from this kind of people God is pleased to take the Church, which will be sanctified through communion with His Son, just as that woman was sanctified through communion with the prophet.” Moses married an Ethiopian, foreshadowing the entry of pagans into the Church of Christ. The harlot Rahab, a pagan, received three spies, that is, the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit (Against heresies. IV, 20.12). There is also a lot of foreshadowing in the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ch. 21). All this was of great importance in preparing the Jews to accept the Lord. Many of them already knew Christ before His birth and “taught by the prophets, they easily welcomed His coming” to earth (23:1). Joseph believed the angel who said that the Virgin Mary’s conception of the Savior occurred in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) and accepted his wife (Matthew 1:20–23). The eunuch of the Ethiopian queen so quickly agreed to be baptized by Philip (Acts Chapter 8) because “he was already prepared by the prophets in the fear of God.” “Therefore the apostles, gathering together the lost sheep of the house of Israel, spoke to them from the Scriptures and proved that the crucified Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and convinced a great multitude of this; and in one day three thousand people, four and five thousand were baptized” (Against Heresies. IV, 23). Therefore, Paul, the apostle of languages, says: “I have labored more than all of them” (1 Cor. 15:10). The work of the other apostles among the Jews was incomparably easier than preaching among the pagans who were completely unprepared by the prophets (Chapter 24). One must carefully read the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and then everyone will find in them speech about Christ and a foreshadowing of the new calling (26:1); everyone will understand that the same Holy Spirit acted in the prophets and in the New Testament, and that one, in general, is the author of both Testaments (Chapter 25). The meaning of prophecies is especially clear for people who belong to the Church and accept its Tradition. “Therefore,” says Irenaeus, concluding his speech on the prophecies, “we must follow the elders in the Church, those who have succession from the apostles and, together with the succession of the episcopacy, by the good pleasure of the Father, have received a certain gift of truth” (25, 1-2). 1517 Further St. the father proceeds (Ch. 27–32) to an analysis of the Gnostics’ references to the sins of the people of the Old Testament and some of the actions of God, from which it is supposedly clear, according to the heretics, the imperfection of the Ruler of the Old Testament and His difference from God the Father. (In this entire section, Irenaeus supports his positions with the testimony of an unknown presbyter.) 1518 The Holy Father admits that even the righteous in the Old Testament had sins. But a distinction must be made between these sins. Some were committed as a crime of the will of God. Such are, for example, the falls of David, Solomon, or the Jewish people in the desert. These sins cannot, of course, be blamed on God. When David suffered from Saul for righteousness, sang the coming of Christ and taught the nations wisdom, he acted according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Solomon, when he judged righteously, explained the wisdom of God, built the church, foreshadowed the kingdom of Christ, announced the coming world to the nations, spoke three thousand parables about the coming of the Lord and five thousand songs, then, according to the testimony of Scripture, he pleased God. But when David took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, as his wife, and Solomon gathered wives from all nations and allowed them to erect idols in Israel, then they were no longer guided by the Holy Spirit. They both sinned. This is how the Holy Scripture presents the matter, narrating that David, at the command of God, was strictly convicted of sin by the prophet Nathan, and, noting about Solomon that he “did evil before the Lord” (“1 Kings 11:1”). Both of them were punished. In the same way, the Jewish people suffered punishment when they did not want to obey the leadership of God and began to “fornicate” in the desert. Twenty-three thousand died then in one day, as the apostle says. Paul (1 Cor. 10:1-13; Against heresies IV, 27:1-3.) Scripture proclaims these sins only for our teaching. If the ancient people who did not see the coming of the Lord were punished, then the Christians who believed in the Comer and living after His atoning death will be subjected to even greater punishment (27, 2,4). Irenaeus also examines the reproach that the heretics made to the Jews regarding the latter taking vessels, clothes, etc. during the exodus from Egypt. The Holy Father admits that this was done at the command of God, but notes that the Gnostics in this case turn out to be only ignorant and not understanding of the justifications of God and His orders (30:1). The Jews cannot be blamed for taking the vessels. Living in Egypt for a long time in the most severe slavery, the Jewish people received the right to own a certain share of the property of the Egyptians. The vessels turned out to be like payment for labor. In addition, the tabernacle was subsequently made from them. Finally, the entire exodus from Egypt must be considered as a prototype of the origin of the Church of Christ (IV, 30). Moreover, one cannot blame God - the Ruler of the Old Testament - or the prophets for such actions that served exclusively as signs of the future. People often committed them even without consciousness. This is the fact of the origin of children from Lot and his two daughters. “The whole meaning of the event was with Lot,” according to St. Irenaeus, - was that the Son of the Father of all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things were created, copulated and united with the flesh, that is, with His creation, through which copulation and union the two synagogues, that is, the two Churches, produced from their Father living children of the living God” (Chapter 31). The expression of Scripture that “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh” (Ex. 9:35), according to the interpretation of St. father, figurative. It must be understood in the sense that “the Lord only allowed Pharaoh’s unbelief and bitterness” (Chapter 29). Thus, it is not clear from anywhere that God the Father and the Creator-Manager of the Old Testament are different from each other. On the contrary, everything shows, as the presbyter, the apostolic disciple, also testifies, that both Testaments originated from the same God, Irenaeus ends his analysis of the references of the heretics (Chapter 32). A truly spiritual person, belonging to the Church and guided by its Tradition, understands and accepts everything stated by St. father. He himself will explain that “the prophets spoke through such a great number of Scriptures to what special feature of the orders of the Lord each of the sayings refers and together will show the whole composition of the work of the Son of God, always knowing the same God and always knowing the same Word of God, although It has only now been revealed to us, and always knowing the same Spirit of God, although He has only recently been poured out on us in a new way and from the creation of the world to the end is poured out on mankind generation, which is why those who believe in God and follow His Word receive the salvation granted by Him” (33:15). Such a spiritual person will understand the affairs and pronounce judgment on the pagans, Jews, Gnostics, Montanists, 1519 Docetes (Chapter 33). “But those who depart from Christ and despise His commandments, and dishonor the Creator with their deeds, and blaspheme their Nourisher with their teaching, bring upon themselves the most righteous judgment” (33:15). This, in fact, ends Irenaeus’s discussion of the Old and New Testaments. However, St. the father considers it necessary to devote several chapters (34–36) to defending the foundations on which the teaching he set forth is built. As we have already seen, in support of his positions he refers to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, especially prophetic speeches, and to the words of the Lord. The Gnostics (we have also already noted this) did not always recognize the proper authority for the Holy Scriptures. Marcion argued that the Old Testament prophets spoke from another god. The Valentinians attributed some of the Holy Scriptures to Christ, others to the Demiurge, a third to the seed, and a fourth to the pleroma. Objecting to Marcion and his followers, Irenaeus (repeating partly what he said in Book IV) appeals to them: “Read carefully the Gospel given to us by the apostles and read carefully the prophets; and you will find that all the activities, all the teaching and all the suffering of our Lord were predicted by them. If such a thought arises in you and you say: what new did the Lord bring by His coming, then know that He brought everything new by the fact that He, having been proclaimed, brought Himself” (34:1). “He fulfilled everything by His coming and is still fulfilling in the Church, until the end (of everything), the New Testament foretold by law” (34:2). All the prophets predicted the same thing. And this did not come true for any of the ancients; but only on Christ (34:3–5). Valentinian's objections are also untenable. “Who was afraid,” asks Irenaeus, “God, who could not reveal His will on His own, independently, freely? Or was He powerless, that He needed the help of the Demiurge, the seed, etc.?” (35, 1). The Demiurge did not know everything, according to the teachings of the Gnostics. Meanwhile, the First Father knew everything. “If the Spirit from the pleroma was the Spirit of light, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of knowledge, and the spirit from the Demiurge was the spirit of ignorance, imperfection, error, then how could there be perfection and deficiency, knowledge and ignorance, error and truth in one and the same (prophetic writings)?” (35, 2). Where also “the seed of their Mother could learn the secrets of the pleroma and speak about them? After all, the Mother gave birth to this seed, being outside the pleroma; and what is outside the pleroma, then, according to the teachings of the heretics, is outside knowledge and is ignorance” (35, 3). Some sayings of Holy Scripture are communicated, according to the Gnostics, from the pleroma. But if you ask from which particular eon this information was received, you will find great disagreement even among the Valentinians themselves. Some will attribute the saying to the First Father, others to the Only Begotten, still others to the Word, fourth to Christ, fifth to the Savior or some other eon. Such a disagreement in itself already proves the heretics wrong (35, 4). Contrary to them, the Lord Himself in many of His parables: about the vineyard and the husbandmen (Matthew Ch. 21), the king who arranged the wedding feast (Matthew Ch. 22), about the prodigal son, about the workers who were sent to the vineyard at different times, etc., shows that the same culprit of the Old and New Testaments. Like the owner of the vineyard, God the Father first sent prophets into the world. When the people did not accept them, He sent His only begotten Son. But many did not believe in Him and were not saved. Both the prophets and the Son were sent, however, by the same Heavenly Father (Ch. 36). The anthropological views of the Gnostics were partly in connection with the views on the Old and New Testaments. Heretics taught that Old Testament people were “substantial”; They, the Gnostics, are spiritual, perfect by nature; that, therefore, Old Testament people, as evil, will be destroyed along with matter (the end of the world); the pneumatics will be reunited with the pleroma. This gave rise (37, 6) to Irenaeus to devote the last chapters (37–41) of Book IV to the presentation of church teaching about man and, in particular, to the question of free will. There are no good or evil people by nature, according to St. father. People are only made that way. A person's mood and activity are determined by his free will. God “gives good advice to everyone, but has placed in man the freedom of choice”; It depends on the person whether to accept or reject, follow or not follow the advice (37:1). This is what Holy Scripture teaches. The Lord said: “Let your light shine before people, so that they may see your deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). And again: “The servant who knows the will of his master and does not do it will be beaten many times” (Luke 12:47). Or: “Why do you call me: Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:45). And not only in deeds, but also in faith, God gave freedom to man. The Savior said: “According to your faith, be it done to you” (Matthew 9:29); “All things are possible to him who believes” (Mark 9:23). That is why “he who believes in Him has eternal life, but he who does not believe in the Son does not have eternal life, but the wrath of God will remain on him” (John 3:36). Therefore, the Lord Himself spoke to Jerusalem: “How many times have I wanted to gather your children, and you were not willing. Therefore your house will remain empty” (Matthew 23:37–38; Against heresies. IV, 37, 3–5). If a person did not have freedom, then he could not deserve any praise for his good deeds, and at the same time no punishment for a crime would be fair in relation to him (37, 2). On the other hand, if goodness were inherent in human nature, then he could not experience pleasure from it. “The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force, and those who use force take it away” (Matthew 11:12). “What comes to us naturally is not as valuable as what is received with great care” (Against heresies. IV, 37, 7). Of course, the Lord had the power to immediately create a person wholly good.” However, freedom would then be destroyed in him. And through it a person is like God. And it would not be useful to immediately give people perfection. They, as created beings, could not use it immediately after creation. The man was like a baby. And the mother does not immediately give the child solid food, even though she could do so. And our Lord could appear in His ineffable glory; but we could not bear His greatness. Therefore He came in the form of a man (Ch. 38). So, the salvation of a person is a matter of his freedom. If he does good, believes in God, fulfills His commandments, seeks His light, then the Lord will grant him this light and will merit him an eternal blissful home. Those who run away from God, the eternal Light, deprive themselves of all blessings and will be subjected to strict condemnation and eternal torment along with the devil and his angels (Ch. 39–41). Book five. In this book, St. Irenaeus decided to supplement his evidence “from other (not yet used by him) sayings of the Lord and from the apostolic epistles,” mainly the apostle. Paul (V, preface; IV, 41, 4). The subject of speech here is eschatological issues. The first half of the book (Ch. 1–20) is devoted to St. the father of the defense of the church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh against the Gnostics, who claimed that only the souls of believers are saved and receive bliss; bodies are all destroyed at the end of world life along with matter. Irenaeus proves, on the one hand, the possibility, on the other, the reality of the resurrection of bodies. 1520 Man, says St. father agrees with ap. Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:23), consists of three parts: spirit, soul and body. The spirit is the highest, dominating in him. The Holy Spirit unites with the human spirit of believers, guiding people and directing their lives towards God. The soul is the breath in a person, what gives him the ability to move, live, act. When she leaves the body, the person dies. The flesh itself has no life. But it is capable of both corruption and incorruption, both death and life (6, 12). This is proven by our personal experience. We move, do various things; that means they are not dead, but alive (Ch. 3, 12). Our earthly existence can continue for a considerable time. The proof is provided by the facts of the longevity of the Old Testament patriarchs, many of whom lived 700, 800, 900 years (Chapter 5, 1). Some of the righteous of the Old Testament, like Enoch and Elijah, were taken alive to heaven. Jonah was miraculously brought back to life from the belly of the whale. Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael remained unharmed in the fiery furnace, which was heated seven times more than usual (Ch. 5, 1-2). All this speaks of the possibility of the resurrection of bodies. Denial of such a possibility leads to the rejection of any of the properties of God: either His omnipotence or goodness. If the Lord, argues Irenaeus, giving life to a person’s soul, does not give it to the body, “this shows Him either weak and powerless, or evil and envious.” But one cannot help but recognize God as omnipotent. He gives existence to everything. He created man from the dust of the earth. Why cannot the Lord recreate the body after death? After all, creating something new out of nothing is much more difficult than calling something that has already been to life. And if the Lord can resurrect the bodies of people, then why doesn’t he do this? Will He really envy man? Or is God an evil being who does not want anyone else to enjoy the good (eternal blissful life after resurrection)? Both assumptions are incompatible with the concept of Him (Ch. 3–4). The reality of the resurrection of the bodies of St. Irenaeus proves it this way. The Son of God, having descended to earth, took on not illusory, but real human flesh. True, the Savior’s flesh had no sin: but its essence was the same with all people (14:3). By this, Christ already made it clear that the whole person would be redeemed by Him, that salvation extended, in particular, to the body of people. But salvation would not be complete if, during the general resurrection, bodies remained incorruptible, in decay (Chapter 1, 14, 16–19). Having redeemed the human race, the Lord established the sacrament of the Eucharist. Every Christian partakes of the true body and true blood of the Savior. The action of the latter extends not only to the soul, but also to the body, by which, in fact, they are perceived. The blood of the Lord “watereth our blood,” and with His body He “strengthens our bodies.” “What do (the heretics) say,” asks St. father, that the flesh does not partake of the gift of God, that is, eternal life - the flesh that feeds on the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of Him? Denial of the resurrection of the body leads to denial of the effectiveness of the Eucharist (Chapter 2). Believers in Christ receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, which, uniting and guiding the soul of man, inhabits and lives in the human body. That is why the apostle says: “Do you not know that you are the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in you? If anyone destroys the church of God, God will destroy him, for the church of God is holy, and this (church) is you” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Here, according to Irenaeus, our body is “clearly called the church in which the Spirit dwells.” “And not only the church, but the church of Christ (the apostle) calls our bodies in the following words to the Corinthians: Do you not know that our bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Cor. 6:15). The activity of the Holy Spirit is directed towards our improvement and preparation for incorruption. By receiving Him, we “little by little learn to accept and bear God.” Grace “makes us spiritual and swallows up mortal things with immortality.” But if now such are the actions of the Spirit in us, then “what will happen,” asks Irenaeus, “when, having risen, we see Him face to face, when all members, in abundance of joy, lift up a song, glorifying the One who raised them from the dead and gave them eternal life?” According to the apostle, the Holy Spirit, living in us, serves as “the guarantee of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:13), the guarantee of our future incorruption and resurrection of the flesh (Chapter 8). Therefore, notes St. father, “it is the greatest blasphemy to say that the church of God, in which the Spirit of the Father lives, and the members of Christ do not participate in salvation, but are destroyed” (Chapter 6). The most striking proof of the resurrection of people along with the body is the indisputable fact of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. The Lord “resurrected in a being of flesh and showed the disciples the marks of the nails and the piercing of his side.” So, says the apostle, God will “resurrect us by His power” (1 Cor. 15:42; Against heresies. Chapter 7). The Gnostics, denying the resurrection of the body, referred to 1 Cor. 15:50, where it is noted that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” St. Irenaeus proves that the actual words of the apostle do not actually confirm the opinions of heretics. The latter interpret “flesh” and “blood” in a physical sense; Meanwhile, the writer himself understood these terms in a moral sense. By “flesh” and “blood” he means people who do not have in themselves and are not guided by the Spirit of God and therefore commit crimes against the moral law, falling under the power of carnal lusts. Thus says the apostle in another place: “The works of the flesh are known; they are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, envy, anger...” (Gal. 5:19-20). These “carnal works” are what is meant in 1 Cor. 15, 50. And that Paul did not actually deny the resurrection of the flesh, there is ample evidence of this in his letters. In two verses only further than the passage cited by the heretics, he says: “This corruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal must put on immortality. Then the word that is written will come true: death is swallowed up in victory. Death! Where is your sting? Hell! Where is your victory? (1 Cor. 15:53–55). “These words,” as Irenaeus noted, “will be true only when this mortal and corruptible flesh rises to life and is clothed with immortality and incorruptibility.” In the same way, the apostle writes to the Philippians: “Our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also await the Savior the Lord Jesus, who will transform our lowly body into conformity with the body of His glory, as He is able according to the working of His power” (Phil. 3:20-21). Or again in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “We always bear the death of Jesus in our body, so that the life of Jesus Christ may be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are continually being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor. 4:10-11). In all the places cited, the apostle, according to St. Irenaeus, “clearly and obviously preaches the resurrection and incorruption of the flesh.” But he cannot, of course, contradict himself, saying in one place completely contrary to what was said in another (Against heresies. IV, 13.3-5; see in general: Ch. 9-14). The future resurrection of the dead with flesh was also predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Isaiah says, “The dead will rise, and those in the graves will rise, and those who are on the earth will rejoice. For the dew that comes from You is health for them” (Is. 26:19). And again: “I will comfort you, and you will be comforted in Jerusalem; and you will see, and your heart will rejoice, and your bones will sprout like grass, and the hand of the Lord will be known to those who honor Him” (Is. 66:13-14). The same thing was announced to Ezekiel in a vision on the river Chebar, when, according to the word of the prophet, the bones, at first dry, united with each other, received veins, flesh, were covered with skin, took on the spirit and became living people (Ezek. 36:1-10; cf. also: 37:12-14; Against heresies. IV, 15:1). The resurrection of the flesh was foretold by the Savior Himself through repeated cases of the resurrection of people during His earthly life. The daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus was called by the Lord again to life in the same bodies that they had before death; therefore, the dead will also rise on the last day with the same flesh that they had on earth (Ch. 13, 1-2). Concluding this section, Irenaeus again calls on believers to firmly adhere to the Church, accept its Scriptures, Tradition and follow the elders. The path shown by the Church and its teachings are correct and will protect from all harm. Meanwhile, “the heretics, being blind to the truth and having gone astray, necessarily wander along different roads” (Chapter 20). The second half of Book V (Ch. 21–37) of St. Father devoted himself to a more or less coherent account of the history of the last destinies of the world and man. According to him, the world will exist for as many thousands of years as the days it was created, i.e. 6,000 (Chapter 23, 2). Before the end of world life, the Lord will allow there to be great sorrow on earth in the form of the reign of the Antichrist, who will embody all the power of the devil. The devil (Irenaeus preliminarily devotes chapters 21–24 to the presentation of church teaching about him) wages a constant struggle with God. Being at first one of the good angels, he envied the first man and became an apostate from the Divine law (Ch. 24:4). Since then, his main characteristic has been lying. He lied to God and deceived people back in paradise, promising the latter that they themselves would become gods if they ate from the forbidden fruit (23:1). And throughout the Old Testament, he “deceived and seduced the souls of men to transgress the commandments of God and little by little blinded the hearts of those who tried to serve him, so that they would forget the true God and worship him as God” (24:3). He assured: “Everything is devoted to me, and I give it to whomever I want,” presenting himself as if he were a ruler; although earthly authorities are not installed by him, but by God (Ch. 24, 1–2). The devil tried to deceive the Lord Himself, tempting Him in the desert with words taken from Scripture, but falsely interpreted. Christ, however, put him to shame, showing that he was distorting the commandments and commandments of God (Ch. 21:2-22). Through His life and death, the Savior won victory over the devil and freed people from enslavement to him. Believers in Christ have themselves received power over the devil and do not have to fear his wiles (Ch. 24:4). The last, final victory of God over him will take place, however, at the end of the world, when the Lord defeats the Antichrist (Irenaeus devotes almost the entire chapter 25-30 to the presentation of the doctrine of the latter). Based on the prophecies of Daniel, the Apocalypse of John the Theologian and the eschatological passages of the epistles of St. Paul, St. the father says that the Antichrist will be an apostate, a slave and a robber; however, he will require worshiping himself as God and declaring himself king. “He will remove idols to suggest that he himself is God; but he will exalt himself as an idol and will concentrate various delusions in himself, so that those who worship the devil through various abominations will serve him through this idol” (Chapter 25, 1). The Antichrist will persecute the Church and believers in Christ. Demons will serve him. Through them He will perform great miracles to deceive those living on earth (Ch. 28:2). He will come from the tribe of Dan (Jer. 8:16). His place of residence will be the Jerusalem Temple, according to the prophecy of Daniel (Matthew 24:15-17.21; Against heresies 25:1-3). The number of his name is 666. “For Noah was 600 years old when the flood came upon the earth... And he (the Antichrist) will restore all the delusions of invented idols and the killing of the prophets and the burning of the righteous that happened after the flood. And the image erected by Nebuchadnezzar was 60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide; because of him, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael were thrown into the fiery furnace, through their adventure prophetically showing the burning of the righteous that would take place in the end” (Ch. 29). This number is also in the best lists of the Apocalypse and is confirmed by the testimony of the disciples of John the Theologian - the elders (Ch. 30.1). In accordance with this, Irenaeus suggests that the Antichrist will bear the name Titan (if the latter is written as Τειτάν). The real word contains 666, consists of six letters, each syllable has three letters. It is ancient and uncommon; none of the kings was called that way, and none of the idols revered by the Greeks and barbarians bore a similar name. But among many it is revered as divine (Ch. 30, 3). However, St. the father does not “decide to affirmatively declare “Titan” for the name of the Antichrist, knowing that if it were necessary at this time to openly proclaim his name, it would be declared by the very one who saw the Revelation” (Chapter 30, 3). 1521 The Great Tribulation on earth, the reign of the Antichrist, according to the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:23–25), will last 3.5 years. At the end of this period, the Lord will defeat the Antichrist and throw him and his minions into the lake of fire (Rev. 19, 20; Against heresies. Ch. 25.3; 30.4). Then the earthly kingdom of Christ will come (Irenaeus adhered to chiliastic views; they are set out in him in chapters 31–37). The Lord will resurrect (the first resurrection) all the saints who have fallen asleep; the righteous survivors will join them. The earth will produce abundant fruits. Peace will reign between men and animals and among the latter. Wild animals will not destroy their fellows; their food will be grass. People will enjoy all the fruits of the earth, reign on it, enjoy communication with angels and prepare for the future vision of God. The establishment of such a sensory kingdom is a matter of simple justice. “It is fair,” says Irenaeus, “that the righteous in the same creation (in the flesh) in which they labored or were subjected to tribulations should receive the fruits of their suffering; and in the creation in which they were put to death for love of God, in the same they were quickened, and in the creation in which they suffered slavery, in the same they reigned” (Ch. 32:1). Back in the Old Testament, God promised Abraham the whole earth as an inheritance. “Lift up your eyes and look from this place where you are, north, south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and to your seed forever” (Gen. 13:14–17). However, neither Abraham nor his descendants ever possessed the entire earth. Therefore, Irenaeus concludes, “it is fitting for him (Abraham) with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, to receive it (inheritance) at the resurrection of the righteous” (Ch. 32:2). Isaac also blessed, by inspiration from God, his youngest son, saying: “God will give you from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth an abundance of wheat and wine. And the nations will serve you, and princes will worship you, and you will be your brother’s master, and your father’s sons will worship you” (Gen. 27:27-29). This promise was not fulfilled in Jacob. Hence, according to Irenaeus, “the above blessing undoubtedly refers to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous will reign, having risen from the dead, when the creation, renewed and liberated, will bear fruit in abundance of all kinds of food from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth” (Against heresies. V, 33, 3). Isaiah prophesied about these same times: “And the wolf will feed with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat, and the calf, and the ox, and the lion will feed together, and a little child will lead them... And a little child will lay his hand on the cave of the asps and on the bed of the children of the asps, and they will do no harm and cannot destroy anyone in My holy mountain” (Is. 11, 6–9). The Lord himself also predicted the coming of the sensual kingdom. Having drunk from the cup at the Last Supper, He told the disciples: “Drink from it, all of you; For this is My blood of the New Testament, which will be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I tell you that from now on I will not drink from this vine until the day when I drink new wine with you in the kingdom of My Father” (Matthew 26:27-29). According to the interpretation of Irenaeus, Christ promised to drink from the vine with His disciples, showing both the inheritance of the land on which the new vine is drunk, and the carnal resurrection of His disciples. For the new resurrecting flesh also receives a new cup. And He cannot be imagined drinking from the vine when He is with His [disciples] in a heavenly place. Those who have Him, again, cannot be without the flesh, for the drink obtained from grapes belongs to the flesh, and not to the spirit (Ch. 33:1-2). In the same way, according to Irenaeus, the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, reported that they heard from him how the Lord taught about those times and said: “The days will come when vine trees will grow and on each there will be ten thousand vines; each vine has 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 Yagodina, and each squeezed Yagodina will give 25 meters of wine. And when one of the saints takes up a brush, another will cry out: I am the best brush, take me; bless the Lord through me. In the same way, a grain of wheat will produce 10 thousand ears, and each ear will have 10 thousand grains, and each grain will yield 10 pounds of pure flour; and other fruit trees, seeds and herbs will produce in appropriate 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” (Chapter 33, 3). 1522 At the end of the earthly Kingdom of Christ there will be a general resurrection of the dead (for the righteous - the second resurrection); and then the judgment of all people will follow (32:1). The Savior spoke about this before the end of His earthly life (Matthew 25). There should be a trial. For “if the Father does not judge, then either it does not belong to Him, or He approves of all actions; and if He does not judge, then all will be equal and considered in the same state. Then, it means that the coming of Christ will be unnecessary and even inconsistent with anything” (Against heresies. V, 27, 1). At the judgment, the Lord will determine to everyone according to his merits: the righteous standing on the right hand will be called to the Kingdom of the Father; and Christ will send the sinners standing on the left side into eternal fire. Some will receive eternal bliss, others will receive eternal torment (28:1). Bliss and torment of St. Irenaeus understood it not so much in the physical sense as in the spiritual, moral sense. “God will give His fellowship to all who keep love for Him. Communication with God is life and light and enjoyment of all the good things that He has. And those who of their own free will depart from Him, He will subject them to excommunication from Himself, which they themselves have chosen. Separation from God is death, and separation from the light is darkness, and alienation from God is the deprivation of all the blessings that He has. Therefore, those who, through their apostasy, have lost the above, as deprived of all goods, are in all kinds of torment, not because God Himself subjected them to punishment in advance, but punishment befalls them as a result of the deprivation of all goods. But the blessings of God are eternal and without end, and therefore their deprivation is eternal and without end” (27:2). There is no usual conclusion in Book V. This gave Grabe 1523 reason to note that perhaps the end of Contra haereses in existing codes has been lost. 1524 The assumption is probable, but it is impossible to speak with certainty about such a loss until the complete Greek original of this outstanding work of Irenaeus is found. As can be seen from the presented content, the methods of Irenaeus' polemics against Gnosticism were different. One of them was, first of all, the very exposition (Ἔ λεγχος) of the Gnostic teaching. The latter was unknown to the greater mass of Christians; and its representatives presented their opinions as truly Christian views. The Holy Father in the first book showed the real essence of the errors of heretics. He noted the pagan origin of gnosis, its fundamental opposition to Christianity, and provided information about the moral life and methods of its preachers and followers. Now heresy has lost its mysterious, attractive appearance and has become less dangerous for the Christian masses. As for the actual refutation (ἀνατροπή), here, as we have seen, Irenaeus begins with the arguments of reason. Proves the mutual contradiction of Gnostic systems, comparing them one with another (for example, the views of Ptolemy with the teachings of Valentinus, Secundus, Colorvas, etc.). 1525 Through consistent development, he brings to the point of absurdity many of the positions of heretics. Stieren, 1526 analyzing Contra haereses, finds in them, not without reason, types of evidence: “ex concessis” (by assumption), 1527 “progressus in infinitum” 1528, etc. Sometimes St. the father ridicules the supposedly deep mysterious thoughts and statements of the Gnostics. Thus, noting that heretics and, in particular, one of their teachers, not named by Irenaeus, arbitrarily give fictitious names to different members of the divine pleroma, St. the father continues: “In this case, nothing prevents anyone else from assigning such names to the same object: there is some Royal First Principle, unthinkable, a force that exists before every being, extending in every direction. Co-present with it is a force that I call Pumpkin, and with this Pumpkin is co-present a force that I call Preemptiness. This Pumpkin and the Preemptiveness, being one, produced, however, without actually producing anything separately from themselves, a fruit visible from everywhere, edible and sweet, which fruit the word calls a Cucumber. With this Cucumber there is the power of the same essence, which I call Melon. These forces—Pumpkin, Prevoid, Cucumber, and Melon—produced the rest of Valentine’s many extravagant melons.” 1529 In the last three books, evidence from Holy Scripture is of primary importance in refuting the opinions of heretics. Quotes from various books of the Old and New Testaments are found on almost every page of Irenaeus’s work. Texts are quoted from Genesis, 1530 Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Proverbs, Psalms, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Jonah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Malachi. 1531 Even more quotes from the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Apostle. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. 1532 As for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, in this regard, in Contra haereses one can find examples of both literal-historical, 1533 and allegorical methods. 1534 The guiding principle, which St. The father recommends to others, and which he himself constantly adheres to, that when explaining passages of Holy Scripture, they should start from what is said there clearly, undisguisedly, 1535 and, most importantly, follow church teaching, as it is preserved in the apostolic tradition, transmitted through the succession of bishops. 1536 Oral Church Tradition serves for St. father's most reliable criterion of truth. He turns to it on many important occasions. 1537 Following the elders, Irenaeus also preaches chiliasm, which was not shared by the entire Church. 1538 Leads St. Father also excerpts from the written works of the Church Fathers who lived before him: Papias of Hierapolis, 1539 Ignatius the God-Bearer, 1540 Clement of Rome, 1541 Justin Martyr, 1542 Polycarp of Smyrna. 1543 The tone of Irenaeus's polemics in general, however, is peaceful, alien to particularly harsh attacks against the Gnostics. Even in the description of the moral disgrace that Mark and the Marcians committed in the Rhone countries, he remains in the role of an almost objective writer of everyday life. And this is completely understandable. His main motive for writing an anti-Gnostic work was, as we have seen, love for his fellow men. Everyone is equally dear to him: Church Christians, who were in danger of falling into heresy, and Gnostics, who had already separated from the Church, but were not yet completely lost. He wants, like a loving father, to warn some and return others. 1544 And this can only be done with love, and not with anger. 3. Sources “Against Heresies” When they talk about the “sources” of “Against Heresies,” they actually mean the first book of this work by Irenaeus. The question of the dependence of St. father from anyone in the refutation of the Gnostic teaching contained in the last four books (II-V), was not seriously considered in scientific research. The independence of Irenaeus in this case is recognized by everyone equally. As for Book I, in this respect, on the contrary, one or another degree of dependence of St. is already a priori undeniable. father from outside sources. Here he expounds not his own views, but someone else’s teaching. In addition, many of the heretics who were brought out from him lived in times earlier than his; such are Simon, Menander, Cyrinthus, etc. Irenaeus could not have been familiar with them directly. The latter is also doubtful in relation to some other, later representatives of the heresy: too many of them were derived from St. father. Thus, in this case, we only have to raise the question of which sources and to what extent Irenaeus used when writing Book I “Against Heresies.” The Gnostics who lived before St. father and those who were his contemporaries, had quite a significant literature, the remains of which have been partially preserved, in the form of fragments, even to the present day. In addition, heresy was analyzed by the Church Fathers, the predecessors of Irenaeus. Justin Martyr and Igisippus wrote against her. In view of this, when deciding the issue of dependence of St. the father is presented with the following three possibilities: 1) Irenaeus expounded the teachings of heretics on the basis of their own writings. 2) The Holy Father took advantage of the works of early church writers. 3) With more modern Gnostics, he could: a) be acquainted himself and b) learn about their teaching and behavior from other persons who were in direct contact with heretics. 1545 These sources are not mutually exclusive: Irenaeus. could use them all at the same time. Which of these possibilities actually took place during the writing of Book I “Against Heresies”? There is no external historical evidence on this matter anywhere. The correct answer to this question can, therefore, only be obtained through a thorough analysis of the contents of this book. Since the middle of the last century, the second possibility, more particularly, the attitude of Irenaeus to Justin’s “Syntagma,” has attracted special attention from researchers. 1546 Outstanding Western scientists: Lipsius, Harnack, Heinrici, analyzing Book I, came to the conclusion that some of its sections are closely dependent on the named work of Justin. Other authors followed in their footsteps. As a result, all recent research on the sources of Irenaeus is almost exclusively concerned with clarifying his relationship to Justin. And the question about the sources of Contra haereses is usually resolved into the question of the dependence of this work on Justin’s “Syntagma”; In view of this state of affairs, we are forced to pay special attention to this point when analyzing the contents of Book I. First and most fully, Irenaeus sets out in his work the Gnostic systems of various representatives of the Valentinian school: They are allocated more than 2/3 of the total content in Book I. St. himself speaks about its sources in this case. father in the preface to the entire work: “I considered it necessary to read the works of Valentin’s students ( μαθητῶν), as they call themselves, and, having learned their way of thinking from personal conversations with some of them (ἐνίοις δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβολών, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν ), show you...” 1547 Thus, the sources of most of Book I, according to Irenaeus himself, are: a) the own writings of heretics, b) personal acquaintance and conversations with some of them by St. father. This is confirmed by a particular consideration of the presentation of these systems. In chapters 1–10, Irenaeus conveys the views of Valentin's student Ptolemy and his followers. He begins to talk about them immediately after the given phrase: “For this (to show the essence of the teaching of the Valentinians), as much as I can, I will briefly and clearly state the opinions of those who are currently spreading the perverse teaching, that is, the followers of Ptolemy, who constitute the offspring of the Valentinian school.” 1548 This connection and the very manner of expression indicate that the above sources were used precisely here, and the presentation of Ptolemy’s teaching is only an example, a particular confirmation of the general position. The same is evidenced by the method of presentation that St. uses here. Irenaeus. Some passages are literal excerpts from the writings of heretics. This is, for example, I, 6, 4: “The foolish are convinced of this, saying literally like this ( αὐταῖς λέξεσι λέγοντες ο ὕ τως ): “Who, being in the world, did not love a woman”" 1549 and perhaps many others. But most of the teaching set out by Irenaeus, obviously in a free paraphrase, and the introductory expressions are constant: “they say”, “claim” (“λέγουσῖν”, “φάσκουσιν”, θέλουσιν) and others like that. In some places St. the father interrupts the presentation with his thoughts and comments; 1550 and sometimes even an ironic addition to the teachings of the heretics. 1551 Makes some digressions to refute them. 1552 Refers to what he said before 1553, etc. In a word, he freely handles the material he has and presents it according to his own plan. All this speaks of his independence in using sources. But it could not have existed if Irenaeus had taken this section from any early anti-Gnostic work. Therefore, the idea of ​​literally borrowing the first ten chapters, without processing, must be rejected. It is impossible, however, to talk about the dependence of St. the father in this case from the early patristic works in the sense of borrowing material, even with its independent processing. The latter possibility is eliminated by purely chronological considerations. As Irenaeus himself says, the followers of Ptolemy, whose system he expounds, lived at the time he wrote Contra haereses. 1554 This means that the early fathers, for example, Justin Martyr, could not have known them at all. 1555 And in this case, the most likely conclusion is that, in presenting the section under discussion, Irenaeus used mainly the writings of heretics. 1556 But on the other hand, there is no doubt that he obtained a lot of information through personal acquaintance. He himself testifies to this. So, speaking about the behavior of heretics (their debauchery, going to festivals with pagans, etc.), St. the father refers to the confessions of the women who returned from them and the facts of reality that took place before his eyes. 1557 This information and data from the writings of the Gnostics, independently combined, formed the basis for his analyzed chapters. To this day, only the letter to Flora has survived from the writings of Ptolemy. 1558 But written on a special occasion, it does not set out the heretic’s system in its entirety. The rest of the works no longer exist. Therefore, unfortunately, it is impossible to decide exactly what exactly was taken by St. father from the books of Ptolemy and what is obtained from personal conversations and meetings with the followers of this Gnostic teacher. In chapters 13–21 of Book I, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine and characterizes the behavior of the followers of another outstanding Valentinian, Mark. The Holy Father does not say directly here that he read the own writings of this heretic or his students. However, a close acquaintance with the said department confirms the reliability of the general position that he expressed (in the preface) about the sources of presentation of the Valentinian systems. Chapters 14 and 15 in the present section consist almost entirely of literal expressions from Mark himself. 1559 Otherwise St. the father conveys the teachings of him and his followers in his own words, providing them with the usual introductory expressions: “they say,” “they affirm,” “they prove,” etc. Thus, there is a complete analogy here with the transmission of the teachings of Ptolemy; with only one difference; that in the present case Irenaeus seems to give more literal excerpts. In exactly the same way as there, but to a much greater extent, he uses other sources. There is a lot about the Marcians of St. my father found out through personal acquaintance with them and from the stories of people seduced by them. As he himself says, followers of this teaching appeared under him in the Rhone countries of Gaul, 1560 and perhaps even in Lyon. Irenaeus could therefore not have known them. He himself mentions some women seduced by heretics, who, upon returning to the Church, conveyed in confession, apparently, to him personally a lot about the life of the Gnostics. 1561 Such familiarity with the behavior of heretics undoubtedly underlies chapters 13 and 21, where the saintly father talks about their symbolic actions in the sacraments and their attitude towards women (corruption, love affairs, etc.). Irenaeus arranges the data obtained in one and the other way according to his own plan; makes comments, 1562 refutes Mark in passing, 1563 emphasizes the ugliness and immorality of the mysterious actions and behavior of his followers, 1564 allows for deviations, repetition of 1565, etc. If we add here another way of citing heretical works, then the independence of St. father when presenting chapters 13–21 will be as obvious as when transmitting the teachings of Ptolemy. Here we are dealing with the result of Irenaeus' personal work. However, while denying borrowing, the same cannot be said about dependence in the broad sense of the word. We mean the attitude of St. father to patristic literature. In I,15,6 he mentions “a certain divine elder and preacher of truth” (ὁ θεῖος πρεσβύτης καὶ κήρυξ τῆς ἀληθείας) and cites the latter’s verses written against Brand. 1566 The same person, apparently, is understood by him in I, 13, 3: “As the best of us said about such (Marcians) (ὁ κρείσσων ἡμῶν), that the soul is impudent and shameless when heated by an empty wind.” 1567 This elder is not called by name; The title of his work is also not given. Judging, however, from the passage quoted from Irenaeus (which contains a complete description of Mark in brief terms), one can think that his work was not large in volume, just as it is generally difficult to write an exhaustive presentation and refutation of someone else’s teaching in poetic form. Prose has always been considered and in fact is much more convenient for this. As for the anonymous author himself, he probably belonged to the ranks of church leaders and was an opponent of the Gnostics. Taking into account that his work is directed against Mark, who acted in the middle of the 2nd century, one can think that he is a representative of the third generation of Christians and, probably, was even a contemporary of Irenaeus himself, although older than him (πρεσβύτης). There is no doubt, however, in any case, that this anonymous person cannot be identified with Justin Martyr and that, generally speaking, Irenaeus in chapters 13–21 was completely independent of the “Syntagma” of the named father. This is clear from the fact that Irenaeus concerns in this section not only Mark, but also his followers. And they, according to his own words, lived at the same time as Contra haereses was written, 1568, so Justin could not have known them at all. 1569 To this day, not only the work of the anonymous author has not survived, but also none of the writings of Mark and his followers. Therefore, to decide what Irenaeus borrowed literally from the works of the Gnostics, what is in paraphrase, from which authors and what he owes to a church anonymous person - unfortunately, it does not seem possible here either. In chapter 18 of St. the father sets out the views of the Encratites and, as their representative, brings Tatian out. The latter was a contemporary of Irenaeus, 1570, and fell into heresy after the death of his teacher Justin. 1571 From this it is clear that neither Justin nor any other early father could serve as a source for Irenaeus in this case; His message about Tatian is undoubtedly independent and appears in literature for the first time. This is how Eusebius presents him when he presents information about Tatian in his “Ecclesiastical History” based, first of all, on the testimony of Irenaeus. 1572 Clement of Alexandria, who generally treated Tatian with respect, mentions and refutes, however, his essay “Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ,” in which Tatian, according to him, rejected marriage. 1573 And this is precisely what Irenaeus claims about him. 1574 In the same way, a certain Rodon says in the essay “Against Marcion” that “Tatian worked on a book of questions (problems - προ βλημάτων βιβλίον), in which he promised to expound the dark and hidden places of the Divine Scriptures,” and declares that he himself (Rodon) in his own work will present an analysis of those “questions” of his (“ αὐτὸς ὁ Ῥ όδων ἐν ἰδί ῳ συγγράμματι τὰς τῶν ἐκείνου 1575 Rawdon was an ecclesiastical polemicist against the Gnostics. 1576 Yes, and the present excerpt is also taken from his anti-Gnostic work against Marcion. In view of this, one can think that Tatian’s “Book of Problems” promised by him is not just an analysis, but a refutation of it. It is very likely that he considered Tatian a Gnostic and found heretical thoughts precisely in his work. Perhaps these two creations were at hand when Irenaeus wrote about Tatian. 1577 Nowadays, however, both of them are lost. Therefore, to speak in more detail about the message of St. there is no father. In chapters 29–31, Irenaeus expounds the teachings of the Barveliots, Ophites and Cainites. They are all united by him into one group. This can be seen already from the opening words of chapter 29: “In addition to these (the above-mentioned Gnostics - the Marcionites and others), from the above-mentioned Simonians there were many more Gnostics who appeared like mushrooms from the ground. I will present their most important opinions” 1578 (and what follows is the transfer of the teachings of these heretics). The same is said in § 3 of Chapter 31, which is the conclusion to this section, and at the same time to the entire book: “It was necessary to clearly prove that the followers of Valentinus, as can be seen from their very opinions and rules, descended from such and such mothers, fathers and grandfathers (the heretics identified in chapters 29–31 were, according to Irenaeus, related and were the predecessors of the contemporary Valentinians. - S. F) and discover their teaching." 1579 The method of presentation here is similar to how the systems of Ptolemy and Marcus are presented. Some points of Gnostic teaching are given literally by Irenaeus. For example, 30.6 from the words: “as a result of this... Yaldabaoth said...” 1580 ff. Most of it is stated by St. father in his own words with the usual inserted expressions: “they say”, “they teach”, “they want to prove” 1581, etc. It is obvious that the source on the basis of which Irenaeus expounded the real systems was similar to the transmission of the teachings of Ptolemy and Mark, i.e., this was, in all likelihood, the own writings of the heretics. In relation to one of them - the Cainites - St. the father directly confirms this: “I also collected their works (Jam autem et collegi eorum conscriptiones).” 1582 One might think that he had at hand the books of other representatives of the real group of Gnostics. About personal acquaintance with the followers of these teachings of St. Irenaeus says nothing; apparently he was not there. However, this does not give the right to suspect the independence of St. father and assume the dependence of his book in this section on any church writers who preceded him. There is no reason for this. On the contrary, judging by the above excerpts from the chapters under discussion, as well as by the manner of presentation, similar to that which is generally practiced by him, it can be said with high probability that St. Irenaeus is no less independent and independent here than when he expounds the teaching of the Valentinians of his time. 1583 But it is impossible to speak and decide in detail about the limits of his independence and the extent of his use of the works of heretics in this case, since none of the books of heretics of this group has survived to this day, as far as is known. Chapters 11–12 and 22–27, which we skipped, have recently attracted the exclusive attention of researchers of the sources of Gnosticism and have been the most developed. The authors indicated at the beginning of this section recognized them as dependent on Justin’s “Syntagma”. In 1865, R. Lipsy published his work “Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios”, where he first expressed the hypothesis that chapters 22–27 of book I “Against Heresies” were borrowed from the said work of Justin. 1584 His reasons are the following: 1) The entire section, starting from 22.2 and ending with 27.4, occupies an exceptional, special position in the content of Book I. It has its own introduction (22, 2) and its conclusion (27, 4). 1585 2) The language, expression and style in general are different here from both the first 21 (partially excluding 11 and 12) and the last 28–31 chapters. 1586 3) The content also does not fit the original purpose of writing the entire work of Irenaeus. The Holy Father intended to expound and refute the teachings of the Valentinians, and in this section the systems of Simon, Menander, Basilides and other heretics who did not belong to the named school are proposed. 1587 All this leads Lipsius to the idea that chapters 22, 2 to 27, 4 do not represent an independent work of St. father, but borrowed from somewhere outside. 1588 But where exactly? 4) In 27.1, Irenaeus names Pope Hyginus as the ninth bishop of Rome. 1589 Meanwhile, in III, 3, 1 he is placed in eighth place from the apostles. 1590 Such a contradiction, according to Lipsius, can only be explained by the fact that in 27.1 St. the father follows the reading of his source verbatim, whereas in III, 3, 1 he uses his own account. But at that time Hyginus was considered the ninth bishop in Rome (catalogus Liberianus); consequently, the source from which Irenaeus took this section was Roman in origin. 1591 5) The second section of Chapter 6 of Book IV and the second section of Chapter 26 of Book V “Against Heresies” make it possible to determine the source of Irenaeus in even more detail. In these places, he, refuting the Gnostics, makes a reference and gives excerpts from the work of Justin against Marcion. 1592 But Σύνταγμα πρὸς Μαρκίωνα, according to Lipsius, 1593 is nothing more than the last part of Justin’s great work, i.e. “Syntagmas against all heresies,” which he mentions in his Apology. 1594 6) That Justin was precisely the source for Irenaeus is confirmed by 1.23.1 “Against Heresies.” Here St. the father talks about Simon the Magus and the statue erected in his honor. 1595 As far as is known, of Irenaeus’ predecessors, only Justin conveys this information, and in the same form, in his first Apology (chap. 26 and 56). 1596 Moving then to a particular consideration of the entire section from chapters 22–27, Lipsius considers, however, that it is necessary to exclude passages containing the teachings of Carpocrates and the Ebionites (I, 25, 4–6 and 16, 2), which, according to him, were probably compiled by St. Irenaeus on our own. 1597 The paragraph on the Nicolaitans (I, 26, 3) also seems doubtful in this regard. 1598 In the same work, the German scientist casually (without any evidence) suggests that Irenaeus may have borrowed § 1 of Chapter 11 of Book I “Against Heresies” from Justin’s Syntagma. 1599 This remark of only 1.5 lines was, however, picked up by Heinrici. In the book “Dievalentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift” (1871), published by the latter 6 years after Lipsius, he devotes a little more space to this issue and expresses the position that not only I, 11, 1, but the entire 11 and 12 chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are borrowed from Justin’s “Syntagma”. His reasons for such a statement are: a) that the said chapters have the character of an additional story, where the old (the messages given above in Contra haereses) are mixed with the new, b) that in this section the same method of transmitting the teachings of the heretics prevails, as in chapters 22–27 of book I. 1600 In 1873, A. Harnack’s doctoral dissertation “Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus” (Leipzig) was published, and in 1874 its continuation under the same title was published in Zeitschrift für historische Theologie. Th. II. S. 143–226: The author devotes significant space, among other things, to the question of the sources of Irenaeus (§ 2 of the dissertation), 1601 paying exclusive attention to chapters 22–27 of book I (regarding the hypothesis of Lipsius). Analyzing the latter’s arguments, he does not recognize the force behind them at all (although he agrees with some) and comes to the conclusion that neither on external grounds, nor on those internal ones, borrowed from Irenaeus himself, which are given by Lipsius, it can be argued that St. the father in these chapters depends on Justin's Syntagma. 1602 However, Harnack considers this very idea to be correct. Only evidence of it, in the opinion of the named scientist, must be sought elsewhere, which is what he himself does. Somewhat higher in the same work, considering the Ὑ πομνήματα of Hegisippus, he comes to the conclusion that in Justin’s “Syntagma” the Gnostic heresies were refuted in the following order: Simon, Menander, Marcion, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Basilides, Satrrnil. 1603 In chapters 22–27 of Irenaeus they are arranged somewhat differently: Simon, Menander, Sathornilus, Basilides, Carpocrates (Valentinus), Cerdon, Marcion (Marcellina, Cyrinthos, Ebionites and Nicolaitans are excluded by Harnack from the count). 1604 The Justinian and Hegisippian order is thus changed here in Irenaeus, starting with the third heretic. 1605 Meanwhile, in Book II (31, 1) Contra haereses, the heretics follow each other like this: Marcion, Simon, Menander, Sathornilus, Basilides, Carpocrates. 1606 Harnack thinks that the latter order was usual for Irenaeus, and in chapters 22–27 St. his father seemed to change it arbitrarily. Its inconsistency in this case with the Justino-Igisippov account indicates that both in general and in particular when presenting chapters 22–27, Irenaeus used Justin’s “Syntagma” as a primary source. 1607 However, as we have already noted, Harnack excludes Marcellina, Cyrinthos, Ebionites and Nicolaitans from the total number. In presenting the teachings of the latter, Irenaeus, in his opinion, was independent. 1608 The writings of Heinrici and Harnack gave rise in 1609 to Lipsius to come out with a new hereseological work, “Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte” (Leipzig, 1875), in which he re-examines the question of the sources of St. Irenea. 1610 In the present case, a significant proportion of attention is given to them and the section from chapters 11-12 of book I “Against Heresies”. 1611 Considering them, Lipsius generally agrees with Heinrici both regarding the grounds and the conclusion. Like him, he points to the special position of this department, complementing and repeating what was said earlier. 1612 Further states that the teaching of Ptolemy, set forth here (12.1-2), contradicts what Irenaeus says about this heretic in the first ten chapters (a new basis compared to Heinrici). 1613 This means that the present section was borrowed by Irenaeus from another early source. And the similarity in language and in general in the transmission of the teachings of the heretics indicates, more particularly, that the content of both chapters should be attributed to the same work that underlies chapters 22–27. 1614 This conclusion, however, forced Lipsius to later come to somewhat unexpected conclusions in comparison with his first work. Chapters 11–12 set forth, among other things, the teaching of Secundus and the followers of Ptolemy. 1615 And about them, according to Irenaeus himself, 1616 it is known that they lived even at the time of writing Contra haereses, that is, in the last quarter of the 2nd century.. 1617 In addition, at 1,25,6 St. the father speaks of a certain Marcellina who came to Rome under Pope Anicetus. 1618 According to Lipsius, mention of her should be dated no earlier than the bishopric of Sotira (155/167–174/175). 1619 Meanwhile, as the German scientist thinks, 1620 “Syntagma” was written by Justin around 145. These chronological data forced Lipsius to admit that when compiling chapters 11–12 and 22–27 St. Irenaeus could not directly use Justin’s Syntagma, since it obviously did not say anything about many of the heretics mentioned in the analyzed sections of “Against Heresies.” 1621 But such a conclusion, as we see, is in contradiction with everything that Lipsius proved in his first work. To avoid it, without completely abandoning his earlier positions, he came up with such a combination. St. Irenaeus undoubtedly used the anti-Gnostic work of Justin; however, this use was not direct. In his hands when writing chapters 11–12 and 22–27 was the revised “Syntagma”. According to Lipsius, an unknown author who lived in Rome (mention of Marcellinus, who came here under Anicetus), in 1622 reworked and significantly expanded the work of Justin in 170–175. This new work served as the source from which Irenaeus borrowed part of his First Book. 1623 - Thus, Lipsius changed somewhat his earlier views. However, the old connection between both fathers remained here. To confirm that the altered “Syntagma” invented by him existed in reality, the German scientist refers to Hippolytus, who allegedly also used it along with St. Irenaeus. 1624 Analyzing the works of both, Lipsy claims (in contrast to his previous views) that the “Syntagma” embraced the following heresies: Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cyrinthos, Valentinus and his school, Secundus, Ptolemy, Cerdon, Marcion. 1625 Thus, from the entire section of chapters 11–12, 22–27, perhaps only the passages relating to the Nicolaitans and Ebionites remain to the share of Irenaeus himself, where he would independently present the material; and even these are still questionable for Lipsius. 1626 The new hypothesis, however, did not find followers among scientists. Already Ludemann, who gave a review of it, finds it unsuccessful and prefers to adhere to the point of view set forth by Lipsius in the first hereseological work. 1627 Like Ludemann, the author of the thorough work “Die Ketzergeschichte des Christentums, urkundlich dargestellt” 1628 A. Hilgenfeld strongly advocates direct acquaintance with St. Irenaeus with Justin's Syntagma and against the new hypothesis of Lipsius. 1629 Unlike the latter, he, however, of the entire section of chapters 11–12 considers only the first three paragraphs of chapter 11 (11, 1–3) Contra haereses to be borrowed from Justin. The remaining parts are considered by Irenaeus to be independent work. 1630 Lipsius's arguments were somewhat corrected and supplemented. Some time later, Lipsius himself spoke in favor of his first opinion, in agreement with Hilgenfeld. 1631 In view of such hesitations on the question of the sources of Irenaeus, Harnack also, already in 1888, significantly changed his view. Now he decides to assert only the “probability” (“probably makes use of Justin”) of the use of St. Irenaeus of Justin's Syntagma, while at the same time refusing the opportunity to determine the limits of dependence. 1632 In 1894, a new work appeared on the same issue: I. Kunze - “De historiae gnosticismi fontibus; novae quaestiones criticae." The author thoroughly criticized all the evidence of Lipsius, Harnack, Heinrici and Hilgenfeld; examined the relevant data and came to the following conclusions: I. Chapters 11-12,22-27 of Book I are closely related to the rest of Irenaeus’ work. II. The Holy Father arranged the material here according to his plan and presented it in his own style. III. He had the main sources (the works of the Gnostics) and Justin's Syntagma against Marcion. IV. If this name does not denote “Syntagma against all heresies,” then it is not probable (non est probabile) that the latter was in the hands of Irenaeus. V. What does St. owe? Father Justina, it is impossible to determine at present. VI. The conjecture of those that ch. 11–12 and 22–27 are attributed to Justin’s “Syntagma”, which is devoid of foundation. The hypothesis of the above-mentioned scientists received proper assessment here. Even Harnack, giving his review of this book, calls it a learned and thorough study, and had to admit that at present it is impossible to decide what Irenaeus owes to Justin's Syntagma. 1633 < In 1903t. Another work by E. Fey (Feye) appeared: “Introduction a l'Etude du gnosticisme” (Paris). The author, while presenting (by the way) the history of the issue of Irenaeus’ sources, does not, however, add anything new of his own. None of the Russian scientists have conducted a special study of this issue. There are only a few passing remarks on this topic in the works on Gnosticism by M. Posnov, 1634. Judging by them, the author recognizes the dependence of St. Irenaeus from Justin's Syntagma, although in this case it is based exclusively on the works of Lipsia, Hilgenfeld and Harnack, without analyzing them and without providing his own evidence. 1635 This is the history of the issue under consideration. As we see, there is no agreement and unity even in the views of supporters of Irenaeus’ dependence on Justin’s “Syntagma,” not to mention Kuntz. Lipsius abandons his first hypothesis and changes it to another, different from the previous one. The authors do not agree with each other either. Harnack refutes and rejects the evidence of Lipsius; This one writes a counter-refutation. Hilgenfeld rejects Lipsius's second hypothesis and defends the first. The dependence itself is also interpreted differently. Lipsy understands it in the form of borrowing without independent processing; Harnack apparently admits the latter. And, the scope of both departments under consideration in relation to their dependence on the “Syntagma” has not been definitively determined and is the same for everyone. In his first work, Lipsius recognizes chapters 22–27 as borrowed, but he himself excludes chapters 25, 4–6 from them; 26, 2 and even 26, 3 (the teaching of Carpocrates, mention of Marcellinus, passages about the Ebionites and Nicolaitans). 1636 And in the second work, only the sections on the Nicolaitans and Ebionites, that is, only two paragraphs of Chapter 26 (26.2-3), are excluded - and even then in question. 1637 Harnack, on the contrary, expands the scope of independently compiled paragraphs, including in them, in addition to 25, b 1638, also the entire chapter 26 1639 and even § 1 ch. 27. 1640 Hilgenfeld again adds the Carpocratian to his account (25, 4–5). 1641 Heinrici extends Irenaeus' dependence on the Syntagma to chapters 11–12 in its entirety. But Lipsius already excludes from them § 4 ch. 11 and § 2 ch. 12; and Hilgenfeld leaves only the first three paragraphs of Chapter 11. These disagreements and inconsistencies in judgments in themselves already raise doubts about whether St. Irenaeus depended on Justin's Syntagma for writing chapters 11–12 and 22–27. But let us turn to an analysis of the reasons on which the supporters of this dependence draw their conclusions. Let us first consider the evidence of the defenders of the idea of ​​borrowing. All of them can be divided into two types. Some are cited to confirm that St. Irenaeus generally borrowed the named departments from another early work; others point out more specifically that such a source was precisely Justin’s “Syntagma”. Since the initiative in creating the hypothesis of borrowing belongs to Lipsius, and his evidence is presented more fully than that of other authors, we will consider them in the order in which they are presented in the first and second (especially about chapters 11–12) of his hereseological works. The first basis for recognizing the dependence and use of St. Irenaeus, when writing this section of some external source, as we have seen, Lipsius indicates that these chapters occupy an exceptional position, having their own special “introduction” (22, 2) and “conclusion” (27, 4e). This idea is partly correct. Indeed, from 22.2 the new part I of the book “Against Heresies” begins. “Since it is a very complex and varied task to discover and expose all heretics, and I intend to refute them all, in accordance with their character, I considered it necessary first to explain their source and origin so that you, knowing their most sublime Depth, understand the nature of the tree that produced such fruits” (system of the Valentinians active in Gaul). 1642 In 27.4 it stands: “Since he alone (Marcion) dared to openly distort the Scriptures and shamelessly slander God more than anyone else, I intend to especially refute him, denouncing him with his own writings, and with the help of God, destroy his teaching on the basis of the speeches of the Lord and the apostles, which he himself respected and used by him. But now, out of necessity, I mentioned him so that you know that everyone who in any way distorts the truth and damages the preaching of the Church are disciples and followers of the Samaritan Simon the Magus. Although they do not announce the name of their teacher to deceive others, they teach his teaching. They use the name of Christ as a bait, but in various ways they introduce the wickedness of Simon and thereby destroy many, insidiously spreading their teaching under the guise of a good name and serving, under the sweetness and beauty of the name, the bitter and evil poison of the serpent, the first culprit of the apostasy.” 1643 However, to call the first paragraph an “introduction” and the second a “conclusion” is to exaggerate their significance. In fact, 22.2 serves as a simple transition to what follows. In previous chapters, St. Irenaeus expounded the teaching of the contemporary representatives of Gnosticism of the Valentinian school. Now he wants to show their source and origin, that is, to present the teaching of their predecessors in the spread of Gnosticism, or, as he puts it in 31.3, “to prove that they come from such and such mothers, fathers and grandfathers and discover their teachings 1644.” Thus, there is nothing special in the “introduction” (according to Lipsius): this paragraph is quite natural in the course of thoughts in book I “Against Heresies”. The conclusion of the new part should be considered not 27.4, but the quoted words from 31.3. And it seems somewhat strange to us why Lipsius, Harnack and others talk about chapters 22–27, leaving aside 29–31. If we recognize the “new department”, then it is necessary to include all the last chapters in it, starting from 22 and ending with 31. 1645 As for 27, 4, this paragraph is a kind of summary, usual for Irenaeus, or, more precisely, a repetition of the thoughts of one or another part of the work and has parallels in other books of his work, where there is no need to talk about any borrowed sections (cf., for example: II, 9.2; 19.8–9; 31.1; III, 15.3; IV, 7.3–4; V, 14; 4, etc.). There is nothing special or unusual for Irenaeus, nor is the content and style of these paragraphs. The heretics mentioned in 22.2 Bythus (“Depth”) are found in him and in other places; for example: II, 5.4; 7.5; 8.2; 13.6; 16, 1, etc. In the same way, the expression “necessarium arbitrati sumus” (“I considered it necessary to first state ...”) has an analogue in the preface to Book I, § 2; 1.19, 1, etc. The general idea of ​​this paragraph is the same with the idea of ​​​​the very name of Irenaeus’s entire work: “The exposure and refutation of false knowledge.” Even more analogies can be found for 27, 4. And first of all, the whole paragraph III, 12, 12, where similar thoughts are presented in the same form. And in other places the same words and expressions are often used as here; for example: “impudorate” “ἀτυηρυθριασμένως” – I,6,3; 11.4; II, 12.3; “proeconium ecclesiae” “κήρυγμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας” – III, 34, 1 and many others. 1646 The second basis for Lipsius is a reference to the image of expression and presentation, which in general in this section, according to him, is completely different from the usual Irineevsky. That this proof does not correspond to reality, however, we have just now shown in the analysis of 22.2 and 27.4. You can cite a few more places from the middle of the department. Such, for example, is the formula “ἀφορμάς” or “ἀρχάς λαβεῖν”, found here (23, 4; 24,1; 27,1) and having a counterpart in I, 28,2; II, 13.8; III, 4,3 and other places. Or the phrase in 24, 7: “having accepted their (mathematicians’) positions, they (the Gnostics) remade them in accordance with the nature of their teaching (illorum theoremata accipientes, in suum characterem transtulerunt)”, 1647 repeated almost literally in II, 31, 1 1648 and many others. 1649 The way Irenaeus quotes the teachings of the Gnostics is identical with the rest of the parts. He uses some expressions literally. These are probably: in 24.6 - “for they say: you know everyone, but let no one know you” 1650 or in 27.3: “to this blasphemy... he (Marcion) added... the following (et hoc): Cain and those like him”, etc. 1651 Most of the teachings of St. the father also conveys through insertions his usual expressions: “aiunt”, “ait”, “inquit”, “demonstravit”, etc. 1652 He also refers to his own writings of the Carpocrats of 1653 and Marcion, 1654, obviously known to him directly. In the same way, he often interrupts the presentation by denouncing heretics, 1655 with his own remarks, 1656 which, as we have seen, occurs in other parts of Book I. 1657 Some information, in all likelihood, was obtained by Irenaeus directly from eyewitnesses of the behavior of the Gnostics, 1658 as well as about the Marcians. 1659 The third proof of Lipsius (about changing the original purpose of writing Contra haereses) cannot also be considered solid. Already Harnack, who agrees with the named scientist in his conclusions, rejects this evidence as not corresponding to the actual state of affairs. 1660 And quite rightly so. True, in the preface to Book I, Irenaeus speaks of his intention to present the teachings of the Valentinians, without mentioning other Gnostics. 1661 However, these words indicate only the immediate goal of his work and in no way reject or exclude another, more important and general one - the refutation of all heretics. We must not forget that Contra haereses, first of all, met the needs and requirements of its time and place. And then in Gaul and Asia Minor, among the Gnostics, it was the followers of Ptolemy, Mark and other Valentinians who were especially active. That is why Irenaeus speaks about them first and more than others. Interesting, however, is his view of the Valentinians. They appear in him as representatives and substitutes of other Gnostics, and he considers their teaching as “a reduction of all heretics (recapitulatio omnium haereticorum).” 1662 Hence, the refutation of the Valentinians is equivalent for Irenaeus to the refutation of all Gnostics. 1663 Thus, one can think that already writing the preface to Book I, he had in mind, by expounding and refuting Ptolemy and Mark, to provide through this means of refuting all Gnostic heretics. And that the latter was the general goal of all his great work, he directly speaks about this in the preface to Book IV: “I will confirm with the words of the Lord what I have said, so that you receive from me arguments from all sides for the defeat of all heretics” 1664 and other places (for example: II, 5.3; 13.8; 31.1). 1665 And contrary to Lipsius, such a goal appears to Irenaeus not only from the moment of writing chapters 22–27, but much earlier. So, he speaks about it already in I, 11, 1, 1666, as Harnack rightly noted. The very title of Irenaeus’s work suggests the same goal: “Ἔ λεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως” - for, according to Lipsius himself, ψευδώνυμος γνώσις is used by Irenaeus to define not just one sect, but all Gnostics in general. 1667 In fact, all the evidence of Lipsius, cited in favor of the idea that chapters 22–27 were taken by Irenaeus from some outside source, is limited to the three analyzed. Next come the grounds indicating that such a source was precisely the “Syntagma” of St. Justina. We will analyze them a little further. Now let us consider the evidence on the basis of which Heinrici and Lipsius (in their second hereseological work) claim that chapters 11–12 were borrowed from the same source that, in their opinion, underlay chapters 22–27. Both named scientists indicate, first of all, that the entire section being treated occupies a special position among other chapters, complementing and repeating what was said above. But as we have already seen, repetition is a common technique of St. Irenaeus, taking place not only, for example, in I, 27, 4, but also in II, 9, 2; II, 31, 1; IV, 7, 3 and many other parts of Contra haereses. If we understand the “peculiarity” of the section of chapters 11–12 in the sense of indicating their content (the systems of Valentinus, Secundus, the students of Ptolemy and other Gnostics are briefly outlined here), then it turns out to be completely natural in the course of Irenaeus’s thoughts and in accordance with his intentions. The general purpose of his work, as we have already seen, is the refutation of all heretics. However, he pays his main attention to the contemporary Valentinians, representatives and deputies of all these heretics (recapitulatio omnium haereticorum), in his opinion. In accordance with this, in Book I, he first (chapters 1–10) sets out in detail the teaching of the modern Valentinian Ptolemy, and then (in chapters 11–12) he briefly points out the difference from him to other representatives of the same school, in order to thereby show the inconsistency of all of them. Thus, the contents of the chapters under consideration are in close logical connection with the previous ones and are fully consistent with the general goal of Irenaeus’ work. 1668 The second basis of Heinrici and Lipsia concerns the manner of expression, style and generally the method of transmitting the teaching, which, according to the said scientists, in chapters 11–12 is the same as 22–27. But as we have already seen, the style and manner of presentation of chapters 22–27 not only do not represent anything special, but, on the contrary, are quite ordinary Irineevsky. And if this section is the same as chapters 11–12, as the named scientists claim, then, contrary to them, there is nothing special here in style and method of expression. This is how things are in reality. St. Irenaeus, when presenting the teachings of the heretics, uses the usual introductory words: “λέ γει”, 1669 “λεγούσιν” 1670, etc., inserts his own remarks, 1671 even mocks the Gnostics, bringing their positions to absurd conclusions; 1672 mentions what he had previously said, 1673 refers to further exposition. 1674 Cf. also I,11,1: Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν , ᾌ νθρωπον , καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν · ε ἶ ναι τε ταύτην Ὀγδοάδα πρώτην " 1675 and 1, 1: " ἐκ δὴ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν Ἄ νθρωπον καὶ καὶ ταύτην ἀρχέγονον Ὀγ δοάδα "1676 etc. As a third reason, Lipsius refers to the contradiction between the content of 12.1–2 and the first ten chapters of Book I. However, Hilgenfeld, who already joins his general conclusion, denies the force behind the present proof. 1677 Indeed, in ch. 12 Irenaeus points out points in the teaching of the followers of Ptolemy that were not discussed in the first ten chapters of “Against Heresies”; for example, that the Depth has two spouses: Thought and Will (12.1), that “the first eight did not occur gradually, but all zones together and at once were produced by the First Father and his Thought” (12.8), etc. 1678 But from here it is still far from “contradiction.” The Holy Father in the first ten chapters sets out the views of Ptolemy himself and those of his disciples who stood close to the leader. In the 12th chapter we are talking about such followers of the heretic who did not accept all points in his teaching, differing in many details. To show such a difference was Irenaeus’s goal when presenting chapter 12, as well as in general throughout the present section (chap. 11-12) of St. the father meant to note “the inconstancy of the opinions of heresy teachers, when two or three of them say different things about the same thing; but they contradict each other both in the essence of the matter and in the names.” 1679 Hilgenfeld, in order to prove that 11, 1–3 are borrowed from an outside source, refers to 11, 3, where Irenaeus, conveying the views of some “famous” teacher among the Gnostics (ἄλλος δὲ τὶς ἐπιφανής διδάσκαλος αὐτῶν), does not call him, however, by name. This, according to the scientist, could not have happened if St. the father read the mentioned teacher’s own works. 1680 However, this passage is not clear in reading. Its Greek text was lost here in 1681 (the words given above in Greek represent only Hilgenfeld’s translation from Latin). As for the Latin text, the existing editions actually contain: “clarus magister”, 1682 corresponding to ἐπιφανής διδάσκαλος. But Epiphanius and Theodoret read here in Greek the own name of the Valentinian heretic Epiphanius, 1683 the inscription of whose name, of course, is very similar to ἐπιφανής clarus. In view of this ambiguity, it is impossible to build any hypotheses on the basis of the existing text. The presented analysis of the evidence of Lipsius, Heinrici and Hilgenfeld shows that there is no reason to assume that chapters 11–12 and 22–27 were borrowed from some outside source. On the contrary, the whole course of speech here, the image of expression, the quotation - the usual Irenaean - says that when presenting this section of St. the father was as independent as when writing the remaining parts of the first book “Against Heresies.” The conclusion already obtained is sufficient to reject the validity of the hypothesis of Lipsia, Heinrici and others in its entirety. For further evidence that in this case St. Irenaeus used no other work, namely the “Syntagma” of St. Justin, can have meaning only in the case when borrowing is generally recognized. If there was no such borrowing and if, on the contrary, the independence of the presentation is obvious, then it is impossible to talk about a particular conclusion and explanation of the general idea about borrowing, the use in the indicated form of this particular work and not another. However, we will consider these evidences (they are presented by Lipsius in his first work). The German scientist points out the contradiction between I, 27, 1 and III, 3, 1 in the mention of Pope Hyginus, whom in the first case Irenaeus calls the ninth bishop from the apostles, and in the second - the eighth. Such a contradiction indicates, according to Lipsius, that information from I, 27, 1 was borrowed from some Roman source. Indeed, there is no correspondence between the indicated messages of Irenaeus. However, given the current position of the sources, it is difficult to decide with certainty what caused such a difference in the count. Several probable explanations can be found. Perhaps, for example, in the first case, St. Irenaeus included among the popes the ap. Peter, and in the second begins the account with his successor in the Roman See. And that 27.1 was not borrowed from St. Irenaeus, but represents his independent work, this is evidenced by the similarity of the style and method of expression of this section with § 1 of Chapter 3 of Book III “Against Heresies,” which (paragraph) recognizes as belonging to St. Irenaeus and Lipsius himself. 1684 But if it really turned out that Irenaeus borrowed this message from a Roman source, perhaps even from the Catalogus Liberianus, then even in this case it is not yet clear why Justin’s “Syntagma” should be considered the source of “Against Heresies”. The only conclusion that can be considered correct is that among the sources of St. my father had this catalogue. And in order to extend this conclusion to Syntagma, it is necessary to first prove that it depended on and repeated the catalog data. However, Lipsy does not provide such proof. And without it, this foundation has no force. Likewise, the comparison of 23.1 with the messages of the first Apology of St. Justin about the heretic Simon and the statue erected in his honor (Apol. Ch. 26 and 56). Irenaeus speaks about Simon the Magus throughout four (§§ 1–4) paragraphs of chapter 23. But regarding the last three (§ 2–4), Lipsius himself claims that in this case St. my father used, in addition to Justin’s Syntagma, some other source. 1685 As for the first paragraph, almost 4/5 of its contents - with the exception of the end, where it specifically talks about the statue - are literal excerpts or transcriptions of the story about this heretic from the book of Acts of St. apostles (Ch. 8.9–11.20–23, etc.), which, obviously, served as a source for Irenaeus in the present case. 1686 If we add here that the style, method of expression and in general the presentation of this entire section - as we have already proven - are ordinary, Irineevsky, then we will come to the conclusion that there was no borrowing without alteration here either. This is equally true both in relation to the Apology and in relation to Justin's Syntagma and other possible sources. Dependence in this form, however, is not assumed in this case not only by Harnack, but even by Lipsius, who apparently understands it only as borrowing of material. But even in this form, the basis being analyzed does not justify the hopes of the supporters of Syntagma. The whole strength of this proof lies in the comparison of the contents of the Apology and Contra haereses. But from here, if any conclusions can be drawn, it is only about the attitude of St. Irenaeus to the last work of Justin. Speaking strictly logically, we have no right to extend them to the Syntagma, since these are two different works of St. father. True, judging by the words of Justin himself, the Syntagma also expounded the heresy of Simon, and even, apparently, in a more complete form than in the Apology. 1687 But there is no basis to assert that the messages on this issue in both works are the same. Yes, and the dependence of St. Irenaeus from the Apology seems doubtful. As we have seen, the entire message of St. father about Simon the Magus takes up four (§§ 1–4) paragraphs of Chapter 23, according to the Russian edition almost three full pages (pp. 86–88). If we compare it with what is said about this heretic in the Apology, it turns out that the latter does not convey the story of the book of Acts (8, 9-23) about Simon, nor does it present the teachings of the heretic. Meanwhile, St. Irenaeus devotes significant space to these departments. The narrative of the book of Acts takes up most of the first paragraph, up to the words: “Simon began with greater zeal,” 1688 translating into lines - about 3/4 pages, and the presentation of the doctrine - almost the entire last three paragraphs, with the exception of the first two phrases of § 2, i.e. only about two pages. The only things that are more or less similar in both books are the end of the first and the beginning of the second paragraphs, which occupy about 15 lines. This proportion (the similar one is 15 lines, and the different one is 23/4 pages, i.e. about 100 lines) in itself shakes the idea of ​​the dependence of Contra haereses on the Apology. However, let's consider similar points. It says: a) about the art of magic, which Simon the Magician mastered, b) about the statue erected in his honor, c) about his recognition by his fans as a being of the highest order and d) about Helen the harlot, whom he led everywhere with him. But the first and third messages are already in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. This source was obviously used by St. Irenaeus in this case. As for the other two points, although there are similarities, there is also a significant difference. St. Justin says that on the statue there was an inscription: “Simoni Deo Sancto.” Irenaeus is silent about this inscription; and about Helen, on the contrary, he adds the detail that she was ransomed by Simon in Tyre, a Phoenician city, 1689, which is not in Justin’s message. With such a difference in messages, can we talk about the dependence of Contra haereses on Apology? We think a negative answer is more appropriate. In Justin's message about Simon in the 26th chapter of the First Apology, the inscription on the statue attracts attention. Justin reads it: “Simoni Deo Sancto” “To Simon the Holy God.” In 1574, this statue was found, and in exactly the same area as Justin defines it. Admittedly, the newly found one and Justinov’s are identical. But the inscription on the one found reads slightly differently: “Semoni Deo Sanco (or Sango), Deo Fidio Sacrum.” Thus, in reality, what is meant is not Simon Magus, but Semon Sank, the god of treaties among the ancient Sabines. 1690 St. Justin, therefore, made a mistake. But how could it happen? There are two possible assumptions here: a) or St. himself. Justin distorted the inscription, or b) other persons misled him. 1691 The first, however, is hardly true. It is most natural to think that St. Justin was misled by others. But who are they? Church Christians had no goal to distort the meaning and reading of the inscription. The Gnostic Simonians remain. They, according to Irenaeus, considered Simon to be a god (23, 1–2). Therefore, understanding the inscription in this particular sense was entirely in their interests. Then they could say: “Look, even the emperor and the Roman Senate consider Simon to be a god. So he is God." They probably interpreted the inscription in their writings in this sense, and St. Justin borrowed information about Simon the Magus from them. Thus, contrary to the generally accepted view that St. Justin is the primary source of messages about this heretic and especially about the statue erected in his honor, we believe that it is most correct to attribute them to the heretics themselves, more precisely, to their writings, at least, for example, “Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη". 1692 In this case, there is no need to reduce Irenaeus’ message about Simon to Justin. Irenaeus obviously borrowed his information, on the one hand, from the Acts, on the other, from the Simonians’ own works. Thus, it was not Irenaeus who used the writings of Justin, but both of them had their source from the third work. With this assumption, the difference that exists between the Apology and Contra haereses is fully explained. One author borrowed some information from the writings of heretics, another - another. But for this reason, of course, some similarities remain between both. Lipsia's reference to the acquaintance of St. Irenaeus with the essay of Justin against Marcion. But under one essential condition, namely: it is necessary first of all to prove that this work is the same as the “Syntagma against all heresies” or, at least, a part of the latter. However, neither Lipsius nor anyone else proves this, but simply takes it on faith, almost as an axiom. Meanwhile, the identity of both syntagmas is even more questionable. Until there is a firmly substantiated, undoubted positive answer to it, the real reason cannot be considered particularly strong. In contrast to the evidence of Lipsius and Heinrici, some data seem to force a conclusion completely opposite to their hypothesis. St. Justin, for example, in his “Dialogue with Tryphon,” written later than the first Apology and “Syntagma,” 1693 does not yet call the Ebionites by that name, although he was familiar with their delusions about Christ as a simple man and with their behavior in relation to pagan Christians. 1694 One might think that they were not mentioned in his “Syntagma”. 1695 Meanwhile, St. Irenaeus places them, as undoubted heretics, precisely in the section of chapters 22–27 (26, 2), 1696, which, as we have seen, served as the reason for the named scientists to exclude the paragraph on the Ebionites from the general connection. Likewise, neither in the Apologies nor in the Dialogue does Justin call the Gnostics by this term, but defines them by the names of their teachers or simply as atheists and blasphemers. 1697 Probably there was no such name in the Syntagma either. Meanwhile, Irenaeus already in I, 11, 1 speaks of “the beginnings of the so-called Gnostic heresy.” 1698 The thoughts about borrowing also contradict some chronological data, which Lipsius himself mentions in his second work. St. Justin speaks of the "Syntagma" in the first Apology; This means that “Syntagma” was written before the last one. But the Apology was probably filed between 150–155. 1699 In this case, the “Syntagma” probably appeared no later than 150. 1700 But Irenaeus in chapters 11 and 12 speaks of the heretics Secunda, the disciples of Ptolemy and, perhaps, Epiphanius (11, 3), 1701 who, by St.’s own admission. father, lived at the time of writing Contra haereses, 1702, i.e. in the last quarter of the 2nd century, and therefore could no longer get into Justin’s “Syntagma”. In the same way, Justin could not speak in it about Marcellina, who came to Rome under Pope Anicetus (25:6). Anicetus came to the throne around 154–155; This means that Marcellina was in Rome no earlier than this time, that is, again, when the Syntagma was already written. In view of precisely this, 25.6 was excluded from the number of departments allegedly borrowed from Justin by Lipsius in his first work, as we have already seen. 1703 Summarizing everything that has been said about the first hypothesis of the named scientist, we come to the conclusion that: 1) the reasons given by him and his supporters in favor of the idea of ​​​​borrowing St. The sections interpreted by Irenaeus from Justin’s “Syntagma” do not prove this borrowing; 2) such borrowing probably did not happen in reality. Chapters 11–12, 22–27 represent, one might think, an independent work by Irenaeus. The idea of ​​borrowing entire departments without processing should be abandoned. And from the point of view of Lipsius himself, the results achieved by him and his followers cannot be called brilliant. Let's calculate what remains, in fact, to Justin's share from the entire content of both sections. Hilgenfeld already recognized that only the first three paragraphs of Chapter 3 were borrowed from him from the section of chapters 11–12. We, for our part, and in agreement with the reasoning of Lipsius in his second work (chronological calculations), will have to exclude from here also 11, 2–3 (here we are talking about Secundus and Epiphanius - contemporaries of the writing of Contra haereses) and even, perhaps, 11,1 (in kind of words about the “Gnostic heresy” - a term probably unknown to St. Justin). From the section of chapters 22–27, all authors agree that one paragraph (§ 2) of chapter 22, entire chapters 23 and 24, the first three paragraphs of the 25th, one (§ 1) of the 26th and the last three (§ 2–4) of the 27th chapter are taken from Justin. But as we have already seen, by Irenaeus’s own admission, when presenting the teachings of Carpocrates and his followers (chapter 25), 1704 as well as the teachings of Marcion (27, 2-3), he used the writings of the heretics themselves. 1705 The second paragraph of Chapter 22 and the fourth of Chapter 27 serve, according to Lipsius and others, as the introduction and conclusion of the department; 1706 means also compiled by Irenaeus himself, especially the last one, where St. the father even expresses his intention to write a special essay against Marcion and refers to the works of the heretic. Thus, only two small chapters remain: 23 and 24 and one paragraph (§ 1) of chapter 26, i.e. almost 1/4 of the total content of both sections. Consider in detail the second hypothesis of Lipsius, that St. Irenaeus borrowed chapters 11-12 and 22-27 from Justin's revised Syntagma, we will not - there is no need for this. The basis of this hypothesis is, in essence, the same data that Lipsius presents in his first work. References to Marcellina and the Valentinians - contemporaries of Irenaeus, as we have seen - only prove the inconsistency of the first hypothesis of the German scientist. Justin's Syntagma, altered by an unknown person, is apparently the creation of Lipsius himself, for no one except him has ever spoken about it. 1707 Sufficient evidence of the inconsistency of the last hypothesis is the fact that, as far as we know, it is not shared by any other authors studying Gnosticism. But maybe St. Irenaeus borrowed only the material, the content of the departments being analyzed, reworking it according to his own plan and presenting it independently? This assumption is more likely. Some of the evidence we have already considered appears to be in his defense. This is, for example, Lipsia’s indication of Irenaeus’ change in the original goal of his work of 1708 or the contradiction that allegedly exists between 12, 1–2 and the first ten chapters of Book I “Against Heresies” when presenting the teachings of Ptolemy. 1709 The same are the references of the named scientist 1710 to the work of Justin against Marcion, which Irenaeus used when writing Contra haereses, or to the similarity of the message of the first Apology of Justin with what Irenaeus says about Simon Magus in 28.1 of Book I “Against Heresies”. 1711 Harnack is also more inclined to understand dependence in the sense of borrowing material when processing it independently, offering his own evidence that differs from those put forward by Lipsius. When analyzing the idea of ​​borrowing, we found out that the first two instructions of Lipsius do not correspond to reality. We have analyzed and refuted his other two references in the same way. The course of Harnack's proofs cannot be called justified and logically correct. First of all, it is impossible to recognize as undoubted the order of heretics that he assumes for Justin’s “Syntagma” on the basis of data, mainly, Ὑ πομνήματα of Hegisippus. 1712 Lipsius already in his first work, as is well known to A. Harnack, 1713 proposes a completely different scheme; 1714 and in the second hereseological work he moves even further away from Harnack. 1715 Then, why does the latter consider the order presented in II, 31.1, and not in chapters 22–27 of Book I, to be normal for Irenaeus? The German scientist's statement is completely arbitrary. The reasons that forced Irenaeus to change the scheme are also not clear to him. And wouldn’t Harnack’s considerations, moreover, lead to a completely opposite conclusion? In fact, if St. the father, at his own request, changed the order of heresies that underlay Justin’s “Syntagma,” then it is hardly necessary to talk about his lack of independence when presenting chapters 11–12 and 22–27. Apparently, the passages where Irenaeus expounds the teachings of Secundus, Epiphanius (?), the followers of Ptolemy, or makes a remark about Marcellinus (11.2; 12.1–2; 25.6) testify against the idea of ​​borrowing material (11.2; 12.1–2; 25.6): all the named persons acted after the death of Justin. On the other hand, if we single out these paragraphs, there is no reason to confidently assert that the rest, most of the chapters under discussion, are completely independent in content from “Syntagma against all heresies.” Given the current state of historical sources, the question of this remains open. However, in our opinion, we can do without a hypothesis about any dependence of Irenaeus on the last work of Justin. We saw that St. the father refers to the works of Carpocrates (25, 4, 5) and Marcion (27, 4). It is very likely that he had the writings of other heretics. In addition, much information, especially about the behavior and mysteries of the Gnostics, was obtained by him either through direct acquaintance with heretics, or through oral transmission from others. 1716 Thus, Irenaeus’s sources here could be, in general, the same as when writing the entire I book. Expounding the teachings of Marcion, St. the father, perhaps, had at hand, along with this heretic’s own works, also an essay against him by St. Justina ("σύνταγμα πρὸς Μαρκίων"). 1717 However, both in relation to the teachings of Ptolemy, Mark and the Ophites, it is also impossible to decide to what extent Irenaeus used the writings of the heretics, for either nothing remains of the latter, or small fragments have been preserved, on the basis of which it is difficult to draw any conclusions. 1718 4. Time of appearance of the Latin translation of “Against Heresies” The question of when the Latin translation of “Against Heresies” appeared is controversial. F. Feyardentius attributed it to Irenaeus himself, or at least to one of the disciples of St. father, who worked under his direct supervision. 1719 This view, already analyzed by Dodwell 1720 and Massuet 1721, however, did not last long in the literature: it corresponded so little to reality and was so clearly untenable. 1722 Having rejected it, the majority of 1723 Western European scientists 1724 until the end of the last century, however, adhered to Massuet’s somewhat related point of view (expressed in agreement with Grabe 1725 and some other early writers, 1726 that the translation was made before Tertullian and Cyprian, who used it in their works). 1727 There were, however, opponents of this opinion. So, even Dodvel, who wrote 21 years earlier than Massuet, attributed the time of translation to the end of the 4th century. 1728 In modern times, Hort spoke in a similar way. 1729 However, only A. Harnack, with his criticism of Massuet’s point of view, 1730 managed to shake the general confidence. 1731 But, speaking out against attributing the translation to the time before Tertullian, he did not give an exact positive solution to the issue. 1732 Therefore, the work of prof. G. Jordan. 1733 The named scientist once again examined all the reasons put forward by Massuet, attracted new data regarding the language of Contra haereses, biblical quotations in this work, and as a result came to the conclusion that the Latin translation appeared later than Tertullian! very likely in the second half of the 4th century, in northern Africa. 1734 After Jordan, as far as we know, no new studies on this issue were published. This difference in opinions depends on the fact that Irenaeus himself does not have direct positive indications of the time of the Latin translation; nor in the works of other contemporary writers. Therefore, when resolving this issue, we have to deal only with indirect grounds. Among them, in the first place, most researchers, starting from Massuet and Dodwell and ending with Jordan, usually analyze the attitude towards Tertullian’s Contra haereses. Massuet claims that Tertullian already had at hand and used the Latin translation of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus. To prove his opinion, he refers to the similarity in the content and text of the works of both fathers, sometimes extending to the point that Tertullian even repeats the mistakes of the Latin translation of Contra haereses that has survived to this day. 1735 Setting out the teachings of the Gnostics in his essay “Against the Valentinians,” Tertullian, indeed, follows the works of his predecessors in denouncing heretics and, in particular, St. Irenaeus, as he himself openly admits. 1736 He especially often used the first chapters of Contra haereses. The similarity of their content and the corresponding parts of Adversus Valentinianos was already noted by one of the early publishers of Tertullian’s works, Zemler. 1737 To be convinced of it, a simple parallel reading of both works is sufficient. But what is the nature of this similarity and is it possible to speak on the basis of it about Tertullian’s acquaintance with the Latin translation of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus? Massuet and his supporters answer the last question in the affirmative; Harnack and Jordan, on the contrary, are negative. To make your own decision, you need to compare the texts of Tertullian and Irenaeus. Let us cite the entire VII chapter of Ad-versus Valentinianos (from where, in fact, the similarity of content begins to be revealed) in parallel with the corresponding passages of Contra haereses - in Greek and Latin. 1738 “Illic etiam Valentinianorum Deus adsummas tegulas habitat. Hunc substantialiter quidem Αἰῶνα Τέλειον appellant, personaliter vero προπάτορα et προ αρχὴν, etiam Bython, quod in sublimibus habitanti minime congruebat. Innatum, immensum, infinitum, invisibilem aetemumque definiunt: quasi statim probent esse, si talem definiant, qualem scimus esse debere; sic et ante omnia fuisse ut dicatur. Sed ut sit expostulo, nec aliud magis in hujus modi denoto, quam quod post omnia inveniuntur, qui ante omnia fuisse dicuntur, et quidem non sua. Sedet itaque Bythos iste infinitis retro aevis in maxima et altissima quiete, in otio plurimo placidae et, ut ita dixerim, stupentis divinitatis, qualem jussit Epicurus. Et tamen quem solum volunt, dant ei secundum in ipso et cum ipso personam, Ennoeam, quam et Charin et Sigen insuper nominant. "" ὑψώμασι τέλειον Αιῶνα προόντα · τοῦτὸν δὲ καὶ ... Προπά τορα καὶ Βυθὸν καλοῦ σιν ... ὑπάρχοντα δ ᾿ αὐ τὸν ἀχώρητὸν καὶ ἀόρα – τον ἀΐδιον τε καὶ ἀγγέ νητον, ἐνἡσυχί ᾳ καὶ ἠ ρε μί ᾳ πολλ ῇ γεγονέναι ἐν ἀπείροις αἰῶσι χρόνων . ? ὀναμά ζουσιν. “Dicunt esse quendam in invisibilibus et inenarrabilibus altitudenibus perfectum Aeo-nem, qui ante fuit; hunc autem et Proarchem et Propatora et Bython vocant. Esse autem ilium invisibilem et quern nullarescape repossit. Cum autem a nullo caperetur, et esset invisibilis, sempiternus et ingenitus, in silentio et in quiete multa fuisse in immensis aeonibus. Cum ipso autem fuisse et Ennoeam quam etiam Charin et Sigen vocant. Et forte accednut in ilia commendatissima quiete, monere eum de proferendo, tandem initio rerum a semetipso. Hoc vice seminis in Si-ge sua veluti in genetalibus vulvae locis collocat. Suscipit ilia statim et praegnans efficitur et parit, utique silentio sige, et quern parit? Nus est, simillimum patri et parem per omnia. Denique solus hic capere sufficit immensam illam et incomprehensibilem magnitudinem patris. Ita et ipse pater dicitur et initium omnium et proprie Monogenes. Atquin non propie, siquidem non solus agnascitur. Nam cum illo processit et femina, cui Veritas (nomen), Monogenes, quia prior genitus, quanto congruentius Protogenes vocaretur. Ergo Bythos et Sige, Nus et Veritas, prima quadriga defenditur Valentinianae factionis, matrix et origo cunctorum...", etc. 1739 προβσλέ σθαι τὸν Βυθὸν τοῦτὸν ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων σπέρμα τὴν προ βολὴν τ αύτην καθέσθαι , ὡ ς ἐν μήτρ ᾳ, τ ῇ συνυπαρ χούσ ῃ ἑαυτῷ Σιγ ῇ. Ταύ την δε ὑποδεξα μένην τὸ σπέρμα τοῦτο καὶ ἐγκύ μονα γενομέ νην, ἀπο – κυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅ μοιόν τε καὶ ἴσον τῷ προβαλόντι καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα Πατρός. Τὸν δὲ Νοῦν τοῦτὸν καὶ Μονογενῆ καλοῦσι , καὶ Πατέρα καὶ Ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων. Συμ προ βεβλῆσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ Ἀλήθεκχν. Καὶ ε ἶ ναι ταύ την πρώτὸν καὶ ἀρ χέ γονον Πυθαγορικὴν Τετ ρακτύν, ἥ ν καὶ ῥ ίζαν τῶν πάντων κα λοῦσιν. Ἔ στι γὰρ Βυ θὸς καὶ Σιγή, ἔπει τα Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια. Αἰσθόμενον τε τὸν Μο νογενῆ τοῦτὸν ἐφ ο ἷ ς προεβλήθη λεῖν καὶ αὐτόν Λόγον καὶ Ζοήν , πατέρα πάν των τῶν μετ ’ αὐτὸν ἐσομέ νων, καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ μόρ – φωσιν παντός τοῦ Πλη ρώματος..."etc. 1740 Et aliquando voluisse a semetipso emittere hunc Bythum, initium omnium (et velut semen prolationem hanc praemitti voluit) et earn deposuisse quasi in vulva ejus, quae cum eo erat, Sige. Hanc autem suscepisse semen hocet praegnantem factam generasse Nun, simi-lem et aequalem ei, qui emiserat, et sulum capi-entem magnitudinem Patris. Nun autem hunc et Unigenitum vocant, et Patrem et Initium omnium. Una autem cum eo emissam Veritatem. Et hanc esse primam et primogenitam Pythagoricam quarternationem, quam et radicerri omnium dicunt. Est enim Bythus et Sige, deinde Nus et Alethia. Sentientemautem Unigenitum hunc, in quae prolatus est, emisisse et ipsum Logon et Zoën, patrem omnium eorum, qui post se futuri essent, et initium et formationem universi Pleromatis...” etc. 1741 As we see, Tertullian’s dependence on Contra haereses when presenting the teachings of the Gnostics is beyond any doubt. Most of the content of Chapter VII was taken by him from Irenaeus. However, it is also obvious that in this case we can only talk about dependence in content. It is impossible to assert the dependence of Tertullian’s text on the Latin translation of Contra haereses. We counted similar words and expressions. In the entire chapter, out of a total of about 320, there were only approximately 20, i.e., about 6%. The percentage is too insignificant to draw any conclusions based on it. It could equally have turned out if Tertullian had used the Latin translation of Irenaeus even if the former had only the Greek original Contra haereses at hand. Tertullian gives a free, letter-independent rendering of the content of Irenaeus's anti-Gnostic work. Cases of coincidence can well be explained as his exact translation of individual expressions of the Greek original. Thus, based on a comparison of the texts of the VII chapter of Adversus Valentinianos and the first Contra haereses, one cannot conclude that a Latin translation of Irenaeus existed in Tertullian’s time. But this chapter, as Jordan rightly notes, 1742 is characteristic of Tertullian. The content of his anti-Gnostic work in most cases represents precisely a free arrangement of material from Contra haereses. 1743 The conclusion we have drawn can therefore be applied in general to Adversus Valentinianos. The only exceptions are a few small departments (Massuet himself cites only three). So, for example, the book. I, ch. 11, 3 Contra haereses read in the present text of the works of Irenaeus: “Est quidem ante omnes Proarche proanennoetos et inennarrabilis et innominabilis, quam ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco henotetem. Haec henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint, prihcipium omnium noëton; et agenneton et aoraton, quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum hac monade est virtus, ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et earn voco hen. Nae autem virtutes, id est, monotes, et henotes, et monas, et hen emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeopit.” 1744 “Est, inquit, ante omnia Proarche inexcogitabile et inennarabile et innominabile, quod ego nomino Monoteta. Cum hac erat alia virtus, quam et ipsam appello Henoteta. Monotes et Henotes id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum essent, protulerunt non proferentes initium omnium intellectual, innascibile, invisibile, quod sermo Monada vocavit. Huic adest consubstantiva virtus, quam appellat Unio. Hae igitur virtutes Solitas, Singularitas, Unitas, ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagatur.” 1745 “Quando cogitavit aliquid emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est; at ubi, quae emisit vera fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem praecogitaverat, posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Locutus est Anthropos Logon, hic est primogenitus filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoë; et sic prima octonatio completa est.” 1746 “Cum inquiunt cogitavit profferre, hoc Pater dictus est.” Cum protulit, quia vera protulit, hie veritas apellata est. Cum semetipsum voluit probari, hoc homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem praecogitavit, cum potulit tunc, Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit homo sermonem, et hie est primogenitus Alius: et sermoni ac-cessit vita, et Ogdoas prima coriclusa est.” 1747 This also includes Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. 25 Contra haereses. I,11, 3. 1748 Already a direct comparison of all these places shows that Tertullian is giving here not a free transcription of the content of the corresponding texts of Irenaeus, but a more or less accurate translation of the Greek original. Thus, the given parts differ, in general, from the presentation of Adversus Valentinianos. But who made the Latin translation available to Tertullian? Massuet, taking into account their similarity with the Latin text Contra haereses that has survived to this day, attributes the translation to the latter. 1749 We made a calculation, and it turned out that there are approximately 28–30% of similar words in both texts. Is it possible on this basis to talk about Tertullian borrowing his text from the Latin translation of Contra haereses? In our opinion, a negative answer is more appropriate here too. To verify this, it is enough to carry out at least such an experiment. Place two seminarians or high school students in different rooms and let them translate a passage, for example, from Titus Livy. When they write their translations, we are sure that they will have at least 30% similarity. But each of them translated independently of the other. It is possible to talk about dependence or even that Tertullian used the Latin translation only in such a case when the similarity is striking and extends to at least 80–90%, as is the case, for example, with Augustine. 1750 If this similarity does not cover even half the words, then we do not consider it possible to recognize it as “massive” 1751 and draw from here conclusions similar to Massuet. On the contrary, the opposite conclusion is more natural. If the authors differ in 70%, then it is likely that Tertullian had nothing at hand, and was completely unfamiliar with the Latin translation of Contra haereses. This conclusion is confirmed by closer acquaintance with the practice followed by Tertullian in his translation into Latin - the language of Gnostic names and terms borrowed from Contra haereses. He was experienced in the difficulties encountered in this case: the discrepancy between the gender of names in Greek and Latin, the usage of Greek terms, etc. Therefore, he subjects the question of names to a preliminary discussion (before the presentation of the Gnostic systems themselves) in Chapter VI of Adversus Valentinianos. Here he also outlines the general lines of his behavior for the future. He wishes to stick predominantly to Greek expressions, placing their Latin meaning on the side of the pages; where he must, of necessity, use Latin terms, there he promises to add, at least in parentheses, Greek words. 1752 This very fact of preliminary discussion of the issue of names in itself speaks for the independence of the author. Obviously, the question had not yet been resolved by practically any of the Latin writers before Tertullian. In particular, there was probably no Latin translation of Contra haereses. Otherwise, Tertullian, one might think, would have expressed something about him - praise or blame - or at least simply mentioned him. There is neither one nor the other. And this is all the more worthy of note since only 4-6 lines above he talks about borrowing the content of Adversus Valentinianos from the works of Irenaeus, Justin and other fathers. If Tertullian admits to borrowing content, why shouldn't he admit to borrowing terms? Obviously, he was the first to pave the way for the transfer of Greek Gnostic expressions and names into the Latin language. Tertullian adheres quite firmly to the principles established in Chapter VI even in the translation itself, which is why his text in this regard often differs significantly from the real Latin Contra haereses. As an example, let's compare two passages taken from Contra haereses: book I. chapter: 1,1. "Ἔ στι γαρ Βυθὸς καὶ Συγὴ, ἔπειτα Νοῦς καὶ Αλήθεια..." "Est enim Bythus et Sige, deinde Nus et Alethia." 1753 “Ergo Bythos et Sige; Nus et Veritas.” 1754 Or a little higher from the same chapter: "Λέγουσι γαρ τινα ε ἶ ναι .… τέλειον αἰῶνα προ όντα" "Dicunt esse quendam perfectum Aeonem, qui ante fuit." 1755 "Hunc substantialiter quidem Αἰῶνα τέλειον apellant." 1756 Everything presented, as we see, not only does not confirm the opinion of Massuet, but rather inclines the thought towards recognizing the independence of Tertullian from the Latin translation of “Against Heresies”. This conclusion is contradicted, apparently, only by the basis of Massuet, when he points to cases of coincidence in the texts of Tertullian and the Latin translation of Contra haereses in the same errors. At first glance, these cases seem striking and seem to eliminate the possibility of the existence of a point of view different from Massuet’s. These are, for example: 1) Contra haereses.4,11,3: “Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum...” (in Latin translation) 1757 and in Tertullian: “Accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri, qui...”; 1758 when the Greek name Ἐπιφανὴς (διδάσκαλος) is translated incorrectly in both texts: "clarus" and "insignioris". Or: 2) Contra haereses. 1,2, 3. "[Primo quidern con-tristari propter incon-summationem gene-rationes] metuere post-remo, ne finis quoque insisteret." 1759 "Primo quidem contri-statam propter incon-summationem generationis: post deinde timuisse, ne hoc ipsum finem habeat." 1760 " "." Or: 3) Contra haereses. I, 5, 2 – and Adversus Valent. Cap. XX, where in Tertullian 1761 and in the Latin translation there is “archangelum” - while in the Greek original in Epiphanius “ἄγγελον". 1762 Or: 4) Contra haereses. 1,2,4 Adversus Valent. Cap. X. "Enthymesin vero ejus et illam appendicem Passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifi-xam...". 1763 “Separata enim intentione ab ea cum appen-dice passione ipsam quidem intra Pleroma perseverasse; concupis-centiam vero ejus cum passione ab Horo sepa-ratam et crucifixam.” " ; - "" 1764 5) Or: Contra haereses. 1,2,2 Advers. Valerit. Cap. IX “Aeon (viderit soloecismus, Sophia enim nomien est)... prorum-pit in patrem inquirere, et genus contrahit vitii, quod exorsum quidem fuerat in allis aliis qui circa Nun, in hunc autem, id est in Sophiam, derivarat (ut solent vitia in corpore alibi connata in aliud membrum perniciem suam efflare)» 1765 "Praesiliit... Aeon, hoc est Sophia, et passa est passionem... quae exorsa quidem fuerat in iis, qui sunt erga Nun et Alethiam derivavit autem in hunc Aeonem, id est Sophiam...". " Προήλατο ... Αἰών , του – τέστιν ἡ Σοφία , καὶ ἔπα θε πάθος ... ὅ ἐνήρξα – το μὲν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Νοῦν καὶ Ἀλήθειαν , ἀπέσκηψε δὲ εἰς τοῦ τον...". 1766 Some errors cannot be counted due to the ambiguity of the existing text. So, it is possible that in the Greek original of the place we put under No. 1, there was originally not the name Ἐπιφανής, but the word έφιφανής lat., identical in spelling. clarus. Moreover, there is no complete coincidence here between Tertullian and the Latin Irenaeus, for clarus and insignioris are not the same thing. Not everyone accepts our reading No. 2 either. Zemler, Kroyman and Jordan, not without right, consider the words placed in brackets as a later insertion. 1767 Jordan explains cases like No. 3 by the fact that Tertullian and the Latin translator probably had at hand a Greek text somewhat different from that preserved to this day by Epiphanius. 1768 But in places like those we have under Nos. 4 and 5, the coincidence is difficult to explain otherwise than by assuming the dependence of one on the other. In fact, even if we assume that in the Greek text that Tertullian and the translator had at hand, instead of ἀποστερεθῆναι - as now in Epiphanius, there was ἀποσταυροῦν , it is still an incorrect translation of this word with the term “crucifixat” in Adversus Valentinianos and the Latin Irenaeus find no other explanation than a coincidence or dependence. But blaming everything on “chance” is hardly convenient or scientific; so the second assumption remains. He also probably explains the translation of the expression ἐπιγενομέν ῳ πάθει - in Tertullian “appendicem passionem” and in the Latin Irenaeus “cum appendice passione”. The translation in No. 5 is exactly the same – ἀποσκήπτειν – with the Latin verb derivare, used in the active voice. 1769 But who depends on whom to make mistakes: Tertullian from the Latin translator or this one from Tertullian? Massuet resolves the issue in the direction of Tertullian's dependence. And at first glance, such a decision seems natural: Irenaeus lived before Tertullian. However, we are not talking about Contra haereses in general, but about the Latin translation, the time of appearance of which for us is only a search for now; Therefore, both assumptions are possible, and the dependence itself does not yet testify in favor of Massuet’s opinion. We, at least, together with Jordan, 1770, taking into account that the first two grounds (the similarity in the texts and the use of names) not only do not say anything for Massuet, but even, on the contrary, incline the idea in favor of Tertullian’s independence from the Latin Irenaeus, we think that it is more correct to accept the dependence of the Latin translator on Tertullian, who made his translation earlier. This assumption is completely consistent with the idea that has developed about Tertullian in science. He was a highly educated man. It is difficult to admit that he blindly followed the mistakes of his predecessor, who was less experienced and had a worse knowledge of the Latin language (let’s say this) in translation. The opposite assumption is quite likely. The negative conclusion regarding Massuet’s view seems to us more correct when comparing the quotation from Contra haereses I, 27.1–2, given by Cyprian of Carthage, with the Latin text of Irenaeus. “Et Cerdon autem quidarn ab iis, qui sunt erga Simonem... cum venisset Romam sub Hygino, qui nonum 1771 locum episcopatus per successionem ab apostolis habuit, docit... Succedens autem ei Marcion Ponticus, adampliavit doctrinam impudorate blasphemans eum, qui a lege et prophetis annuntiatus est Deus; malorum factorem et bellorum concupiscentem et inconstantem quoque sententia et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens.” 1772 “... necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino episcopo, qui in urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit, quern Marcion secutus additis ad crimen augmentis impudentius ceteris et abruptius in Deum patrem creatorem blasphemare instituit et haereticum furorum sacrilegis armis contra ecclesiam rebellantem sceleratius et gravius armavit.” 1773 " καὶ ἐπι δημήοας ἐν τ ῇ Ρώμ ῃ ἐπὶ Ὑ γίνου , ἔνατὸν κλῆρον τῆς ἐπισκοπικῆς δια δοχῆς ἀπό τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐχοντος , ἐδί – δαξεν τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν κεκη ρυγμένον θεὸν μὴ ε ἶ ναι πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Τὸν μὲν γὰρ γνωρίζεσθαι, τὸν δε ἁ γνῶτα ε ἶ ναι, καὶ τὸν μὲν δίκαιον, τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν · διαδεξάμε νος δὲ αὐτὸν Μαρκίων ὁ Ποντικὸς ". 1774 As we can see, no more than six similar words can be counted in this entire section (i.e., 12%); Yes, four of them turn out to be proper names. Therefore, Cyprian's text cannot even be called a translation of Contra haereses; this is the same free transfer of content as in Chapter VII of Tertullian's Adversus Valentinianos. And in this case, one cannot talk about dependence or even acquaintance of St. Cyprian with a Latin translation of the work of Irenaeus. It is quite possible that the former had at hand the Greek original of the Contra haereses, and he transmitted in free form only one passage from it in Latin, thus making his own translation. Massuet, anticipating such a conclusion, points out that Cyprian allegedly did not know the Greek language. 1775 However, Jordan rightly objects to him that in the first half of the 3rd century, when St. lived. father, the Greek language continued to be a common literary language. In addition, Cyprian, coming from wealthy parents, received a good education. 1776 Therefore, it is not possible to speak confidently about his unfamiliarity with the Greek language; especially since neither Massuet nor anyone else supports their current position with any evidence. The later, and partly contemporary, Christian writers of Tertullian and Cyprian, who left their works in Latin, also do not show any traces of acquaintance with the Latin Irenaeus. Meanwhile, most of them, like Novatian, Rufinus, Jerome and, probably, Lactantius and Victorinus, knew well, in general, the works of St. father. 1777 Particularly characteristic is the silence about the Latin translation of Contra haereses in Lactantius, Rufinus and Jerome. The first is rightly considered an expert in Greek and Latin literature of the past and his time. And if he has no traces or mention of the Latin Irenaeus, then the latter did not exist at that time. Rufinus translated Eusebius's History into Latin. As you know, it contains a lot of excerpts in Greek from Contra haereses. If Rufinus had, or even existed in his time, a Latin translation of the work of Irenaeus, he, in all likelihood, would have used it to facilitate his work. Meanwhile, Jordan, having carefully checked and compared Rufinus’ translation with the Greek original of Eusebius and the Latin Irenaeus, quite definitely asserts that Rufinus has absolutely no traces of acquaintance with the latter, and his translation was made independently from the Greek original. 1778 Jerome not only says nothing about the Latin translation of Irenaeus, but directly classifies St. father to Greek writers. 1779 And the voice of this biographer of St. fathers must be taken into account. He carefully collected information about them; and if he had known the Latin translation of Contra haereses, he would not have failed to mention it. Clear traces of the use of the Latin translation of Irenaeus's work are found only in Blessed. Augustine in his work Contra Julianum. To verify this, a simple comparison of the corresponding texts is sufficient. For example, IV, 2, 7 Contra haereses reads: in the Latin translation of Irenaeus: "Non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant in eum, qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatus a terra, omnia traxit ad se et vivificavit mortuos." 1780 "Non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant in eum, qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatur a terra et omnia trahit ad se et vivificate mortuos." 1781 or Contra haereses. V, 19.1 “Quemadmodum adstricturn est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, aequa lance disposita, virginalis inoboedientia per virginalem oboedientiam. Adhuc enim protoplasti peccato per corruptionem primogeniti emendationem accipiente, serpentis prudentia devicta per simplicitatem columbae, vinculis illis resoluti sumus, per quae alligati eramus morti.” 1782 “Et quemadmodum adstricturn est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem: aequa.lance disposita, virginalis inoboedientia per virginalem oboedientiam.” Adhuc enim protoplasti peccatum per corruptionem prirnogeniti emendationnem accipiens et serpentis prudentia devicta in columbae simplicitate, vinculis autem illis resolutis, per quae alligati eramus morti.” 1783 As you can see, the difference here is only 2-3 words; and that, due to its insignificance, should be attributed rather to a typo by the copyists. The similarity is truly striking. And it cannot be explained in any other way than by the fact that Augustine took his text from the real Latin translation of the work of Irenaeus. Having cited excerpts, Augustine also does not say anywhere that this is his own translation. Meanwhile, he often makes similar remarks when quoting other fathers who wrote in Greek. 1784 His familiarity with the Latin translation of Contra haereses is also evidenced by the fact that he classifies St. Irenaeus to Latin writers, meaning by this expression people who wrote in Latin. 1785 Perhaps the Greek original of Irenaeus’s work was completely unknown to him. In any case, from all the data presented it is beyond doubt that the Latin translation of Contra haereses existed in the time of Augustine and even somewhat earlier. However, taking into account what we have said about Tertullian, Cyprian and other previous writers, the date of its appearance cannot be particularly pushed back. The second half of the 4th century, indicated by Jordan, and in our opinion, is most suitable here. There is no further evidence of the existence of the Latin Irenaeus until almost the 9th century, to which some surviving Contra haereses manuscripts belong (see about them above). Only one of the letters of Pope Gregory the Great gives an interesting message. Epherius, Bishop of Lyons, who lived at the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th century, turned to him with a request to send him a biography and works of Irenaeus (probably meaning the Latin text). The Pope writes in response that neither one nor the other could be found in Rome. 1786 This answer, and indeed Epherius’s request itself, are very typical. Obviously, neither Lyon nor Rome existed at the beginning of the 7th century. Latin Irenaeus. 1787 But how then should we understand the evidence of Augustine’s works? The best explanation is Jordan’s assumption that in Gregory the Great we see only an indirect indication of the place where the translation appeared. If it was not known in Rome and Lyon back in the 7th century, it means that it was not made here, but somewhere far from the place of service of the saint. Irenaeus and the capitals of the world. But where? Quotations from Augustine suggest a likely answer. Obviously, this place was North Africa, where this father lived. Therefore, the translation was known to him at the beginning of the 5th century; and did not reach Lyon and Rome even in VII. 1788 The reason for the appearance of the translation can be taken, following Dodwell 1789, in the struggle with the Priscillianists, whom the Church considered to be Gnostics. Jordanes opinion about the time of his appearance is also confirmed by quotations from the Holy Scriptures, which are found in large numbers in Contra haereses. In their translation into Latin, one notices, on the one hand, closeness to the Greek original, when literally, word by word, Greek expressions are given, even though they differ even from other existing texts of the Bible. 1790 On the other hand, very many of them are undoubtedly given from the Latin text of the pre-Jerome Church Bible, which in some places differs from the Greek quotations Contra haereses. 1791 The first is completely clear: the translator, generally speaking, slavishly followed his original source, literally conveying it. And the more interesting is the second fact when, contrary to his custom, he quotes passages of Holy Scripture from the Latin Church Bible. This change, or inconsistency, finds an explanation in the fact that, obviously, the latter text was very authoritative for him and generally accepted in the Latin countries of that time. In science, the appearance of the Latin translation of the Bible usually dates back to the 3rd century. 1792 In accordance with this, the time of general recognition of its authority must be dated a century later. And in this case, we again come to the middle of the 4th century as the most suitable date for the Latin translation of Contra haereses. 1793 As for the Latin language of this work itself, the form of expression, etc., then, as Jordan rightly noted, it does not present such characteristic features that the time of translation could be attributed to a certain period. But, in any case, its analysis does not give any reason to deny the possibility of the appearance of a translation in the 4th century. 1794 It is impossible to determine who the translator of Contra haereses was due to lack of data. Jordan suggests that this may be Victorinus of Petavsky, who lived in the 4th century. The German scientist wants to find an indication of it in Jerome’s message that Victorinus wrote an essay against all heresies. 1795 Such work has not survived to this day. The coincidence of its title with Contra haereses gave Jordan a reason to think that Jerome mistakenly attributed the work of Irenaeus to Victorinus, while he was only its translator. 1796 However, the German scientist himself admits that he does not dare to defend his opinion, based, in essence, only on the coincidence of titles; 1797 and even puts a note about it in a note below the line. 5. Greek original “Against Heresies” in Modern Times The Greek original of “Against Heresies,” judging by the quotations from this work preserved by the ancient Church Fathers, probably existed until the 9th-10th centuries. After this there is no direct evidence about him; and at present we are forced to deal only with the Latin translation. However, from the 16th century until now there have been several attempts to find the original. The first message of this kind is given by Feyardentius. According to him, some pious and learned men testified that they themselves had seen and read the Greek copy of the works of Irenaeus in the libraries of Venice and the Vatican. 1798 Their testimony prompted Feyardentius to begin the search. But the latter were unsuccessful. 1799 In the same way, Massuet, familiar with the above message of Feyardentius, searched in vain for Greek codices in the named libraries. 1800 And to this day, for 300 years, no remains of them have yet been discovered. Therefore, one has to suspect the reliability of the messages of the “pious and learned men” of Feyardentius. In the 16th century began to intensively publish and republish the works of Irenaeus. Only the Latin text was available. Meanwhile, it was known that St. my father wrote in Greek. Hence the desire to find the Greek original was quite understandable. This desire (only) in the minds of some took, it seems, the form of an actual fact, and the location of the codices was confined to the well-known extensive libraries of the Vatican and Venice. The hope of finding Contra haereses in Greek seems to have been abandoned here. This is not, perhaps, the situation is hopeless with other book depositories. T. Zahn in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (Bd. P. 1878) cites a story by I. Sakkelion, published in the Greek magazine Pandora (Bd. XV) and during the publication of Πινδάρου σχόλια Πατμιακά (1875). Sakkelion reports that in the library of the monastery of St. John on Patmos there was a copy of the works of Pindar, dated 1515. At the end of it there are scholia on this poet, written by two different hands, according to Sakkelion, in the 16th century. In addition, as he further tells, on the first page of the work there is a list of six works: Ἀρεταῖος καππαδόκης μὴ λειπόμενος Μενάνδρου τραγ ῳ δίαι Εἰρηναίου Ἐπισκόπου Λουγδούνων κατὰ αἱρέσεων βίβλια Ε ´ Ἡ γισίππου ἀνδρὸς ἀποστολικοῦ βίβλια Ε ´, etc. Having analyzed this message, Tsang came to the conclusion that the appearance of the above list dates back to the time between 1550 and 1628. Its author was undoubtedly a Greek. Judging by the term μὴ λειπόμενος in relation to the first manuscript, one can think that all the others had survived before him and were at his fingertips. Tsang even thinks that this list is only part of the catalog of codices that then existed in the monastery library; all of them were much larger. It is important for us that Contra haereses is also mentioned among them. This means that the Greek original of this work existed, according to Tsang, in the 16th century. 1801 To a similar conclusion in relation to the 17th century. F. Meyer also comes, who found in the Iveron Athos Monastery in the codex of the 17th century a list of Greek manuscripts and between them the works of Irenaeus. 1802 About the latter, Harnack makes the not unreasonable assumption that this is a simple copy from the Greek translation of Jerome's catalog (De viris illustribus). 1803 Other explanations are apparently possible. However, one cannot deny the probability behind Meyer's explanation. The discovery of Διδαχή τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, and recently “Proofs of the Apostolic Preaching” and IV-V books of Contra haereses (in Armenian) gives the right to recognize the possibility of the existence somewhere of a Greek original of the main work of St. father. 6. Authenticity “Against Heresies” The question of the authenticity of “Against Heresies” was not raised until the second half of the 18th century: everyone was so sure of it. The first and, as far as we know, the only person to reject it was I. S. Zemler. 1804 First of all, he refers to the fact that in the book. III, ch. 3 sets out (as if) the doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which forces us to assume a later origin of the work under discussion, from an author imbued with a papist tendency. The teaching “Against Heresies” about the primacy of bishops in the Church also could not, according to Zemler, appear in the 2nd century. Irenaeus’ close connection with the East also seems suspicious to him. The Holy Father quotes the works of Papias, Hermas, unknown to the Latins at that time; refers to eastern "elders"; provides excerpts from Plato, Homer, Menander and other secular Greek writers; was familiar with the Hebrew language. All this, Zemler thinks, could hardly have taken place if the work in question had actually been written in the West (in Lyon). At the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th century. Bishop Epherius of Lyon turned to Pope Gregory the Great with a request to send him the works of Irenaeus. However, they were not in Rome. Based on these data, Zemler declared the currently available text “Against Heresies” to be fraudulent in its entirety, or at least in a significant part. But when and by whom was the forgery committed? Zemler rejects the authenticity of Tertullian's testimony in Adversus Valent Cap. V about Irenaeus. In his opinion, Eusebius should be considered the first person familiar with the real (forged) text “Against Heresies”. This means that the work attributed to Irenaeus appeared no earlier than the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th century. The same is confirmed upon closer acquaintance with the works of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Comparing their content with the existing text of Against Heresies, one cannot help but notice striking similarities between them in many parts. But neither Tertullian nor Clement of Alexandria, as Zemler thinks, could have been familiar (at least in full) and used the works of Irenaeus, who lived at the same time as them. Obviously, the work attributed to the latter appeared later than them. Zemler does not name the exact authors of the forgery. In his opinion, a group of people worked here, apparently acting for the glory of the Roman Church and its bishop. They organized a whole “factory” (officina) of forged works. By the way, Contra haereses were also distorted or rewritten. The present work, as it seems to Zemler, is a compendium from various passages of Clement’s Stromata, the works of Tertullian, and perhaps other works that now do not exist. The authors of the forgery attributed this newly created (or altered) work to St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whose name was highly respected in the Church at that time. Zemler is inclined to include, apparently, some of Tertullian’s works as fabricated, especially “Against the Valentinians.” 1805 X. F. Walchiy spoke out against the new hypothesis. 1806 His considerations are not particularly deep and thorough; nevertheless, after him the question of it was no longer raised: so it turned out that the general conviction in the authenticity of the Contra haereses in their current form was little shaken by Zemler’s objections. Zemler's first proof is not valid. The teaching of Irenaeus about the primacy (as if) of the Pope is still in question. Very many authors very thoroughly argue that in III, 3 Contra haereses there is no trace of such views. 1807 Yes, if St. father recognized this primacy, on such a basis it would also be strange to reject the authenticity of his creations. Maybe he was wrong; let them consider it a mistake. But why is it absolutely necessary to recognize an obvious forgery here? Irenaeus’ teaching on the priority position of bishops in the Church also cannot be called completely new, unknown, and therefore not suitable for the 2nd century. Similar views were expressed much earlier than St. father Clement of Rome and Ignatius the God-Bearer. They also have solid foundations in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. 1808 Irenaeus’s connection with the East, his references to Greek writers and fathers, and (insignificant) acquaintance with the Hebrew language are explained very simply. Childhood and, perhaps, most of St.'s youth. father flowed in Asia Minor, with its predominantly Greek population and Greek culture, under the influence of Polycarp and other Asia Minor “presbyters.” 1809 As for Zemler’s reference to Epherius’ letter, he himself takes away its force when he dates the appearance of “Against Heresies” to the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century. He himself needs to explain the lack of legible work in the libraries of Rome. Moreover, this objection is essentially directed directly against his theory. If Contra haereses is a fraud on the part of Catholics, then, obviously, in the center of Catholicism it should have been preserved two centuries later. If in reality it did not turn out to be, then it means that the Catholics did not attach as much importance to it as Zemler thinks. In the letter of Epherius itself, as we have already noted, we are talking, probably, not at all about the work of Irenaeus, but only about its Latin translation, which appeared in TV c. in North Africa and had not yet managed to reach either Rome or Lyon by the time of Pope Gregory. There are certainly similarities between Tertullian’s treatise “Against the Valentinians”, 1810, some passages from the “Stromata” of Clement of Alexandria, on the one hand, and the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus, on the other. 1811 However, it is by no means possible to conclude from this that “Against Heresies” appeared later than the first two works, being fabricated from them or together with them (especially with Tertullian’s treatise). The only reason that Zemler gives in favor of such a conclusion is that Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement were contemporaries; therefore the latter two could not benefit from the labor of the first. However, this position is only partly true; the second half of it is not true. Tertullian wrote his work “Against the Valentinians,” one might think, already in the 3rd century, after he went over to the side of the Montanists, i.e., around 208–215. 1812 Between 208 and 211. Clement's Stromata probably also appeared. 1813 The antignostic work of Irenaeus was written in 185–189. Thus, both Tertullian and Clement had every opportunity for 20–25 years to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the work of the Bishop of Lyons. Tertullian himself openly admits his dependence on Irenaeus. 1814 And Zemler completely arbitrarily denies the significance behind his testimony. It does not agree with Zemler's theory. But if you are guided by such considerations, then you can reject all the most reliable historical data. Zemler does not provide any other evidence. According to Eusebius, Clement was also familiar with the works of Irenaeus and used some passages from them in his essay “On Easter.” 1815 There is, therefore, no reason to invent a mythical factory of counterfeit creations of St. fathers Things were simpler. Tertullian and Clement took advantage of the work of Irenaeus that already existed in their time. This explains the similarities between their creations and some parts of Against Heresies. In general, Zemler’s statement that before Eusebius no one was familiar with the work of the Bishop of Lyon is incorrect. Let us leave aside the testimony of Eusebius (about Clement) and Tertullian (about himself). The author, however, forgot that the work of Irenaeus was already recognized by the compiler of the “Small Labyrinth” as generally known. “Who does not know,” he says, “the books of Irenaeus, Melito and others, in which Christ is called God and man?” 1816 Cyprian of Carthage discovers the real content of “Against Heresies” in a letter to Pompey. 1817 Hippolytus of Rome, according to Photius, 1818 used the data of Contra haereses in his Syntagma. In his “Philosophumens”, a significant part of the first book of this work, 1819, is given in excerpts, similar to the present text. 1820 Zemler's theory should therefore be rejected as completely untenable. There can be no place, however, any other like it. The work of Irenaeus in the form that has survived to this day is fully consistent with the messages and data that are available about him in ancient historical sources. Extracts from it that completely coincide with the present text, in addition to Hippolytus and Tertullian, are given by: Eusebius, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret and other fathers. 1821 Jerome, 1822 Photius 1823 claim that this work has long been divided into 5 books, as it is now. Tertullian, 1824 Eusebius, 1825 Jerome, 1826 Photius 1827 define its content as primarily anti-gnostic, directed against the Valentinians, Marcion and other heretics, which is in reality. Eusebius, 1828 Photius, 1829 John of Damascus 1830 gives the same full title as was given to it by Irenaeus himself. All this taken together serves as a serious foundation for confidence in the authenticity of all five books of “Against Heresies”, on which the majority of scientists stood and stand, and which cannot be shaken by speeches like Zemler’s. 7. Meaning "Against heresies" There is no exact and direct historical information about what the immediate results of the publication of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus were. The works of the heresiological fathers provide only indirect grounds for judging its significance in the subsequent struggle of the Church against heresy. Hippolytus of Rome already used the work of Irenaeus in his Syntagma. 1831 In his “Philosophumena” he cites, sometimes quite extensive, excerpts from Contra haereses. 1832 Sends messages to St. father about the Gnostics Tertullian in the essay “Against the Valentinians.” 1833 He also learned from Irenaeus the method of refuting heretics (bringing their positions to the point of absurdity and ridiculing supposedly profound teachings). 1834 Epiphanius of Cyprus contributed the entire twenty chapters of Book I of Contra haereses to his anti-heretic work. 1835 Theodoret, expounding the systems of heretics, also uses the work of Irenaeus as a basis, shortening and supplementing the messages of St. father. 1836 This shows how respected Irenaeus’ work was. The teachers of the Church, his successors in the fight against heresy, used it as their main tool. From it they drew data concerning the theoretical errors of the Gnostics; here they received information about the moral behavior of the leaders of the heresy; from here they borrowed methods of struggle and sufficient means to refute the Gnostics. Even after his death, Irenaeus remained, thus, a living fighter against heresy, revealing his influence in the works of his successors. And this is the great merit of St. father. But the teachers of the Church obviously had good reasons to treat his work this way. They, especially those closest in time, probably saw with their own eyes what an impression the work of the Bishop of Lyons made on church Christians and Gnostics. In their attitude one can notice echoes of the general opinion of that era. They used the work of Irenaeus so much, obviously because the immediate results of its publication, known to them personally, were also great. And this is quite natural. In Irenaeus’s own words, before him, many of the views of heretics and their behavior were not known to the broad masses, 1837. He was one of the first to present an exposition of the systems of Gnosticism, starting with Simon the Magus and ending with the contemporaries of St. father. He revealed the moral ugliness in the behavior of the leaders and followers of the heresy; reported information about their mysteries. This alone could warn church Christians against being carried away by gnosis, explain to inexperienced supporters of the latter the true essence of the new movement and instill in them disgust for immoral leaders. The Holy Father, however, at the same time analyzed and refuted the heresy from all points of view: on the basis of the data of reason, Holy Scripture and Church Tradition. Many of the positions of the Gnostics are brought to an absurd or ridiculous, although logical, conclusion; others are presented as contrary to the teachings of the Bible, the words of Christ and the apostles, and inconsistent with the general church views. The heresy struck, so to speak, to her very heart. And there can hardly be any doubt that the blow inflicted on her by Irenaeus had a strong impact on her; especially because he was one of the first. Starting from the 3rd century, Gnosticism began to decline, and by the 6th century it was relegated to the level of a simple historical phenomenon, without influence on Christian life. And, undoubtedly, the anti-heretic work of Irenaeus played a huge role in this. He was no less important in the internal life of the Christian Church of that time. The Holy Fathers, who wrote before the second half of the 2nd century, gave mainly moral instructions in their works or defended Christians from attacks by the authorities and the mob (apologists). Contra haereses responded to the need that had already emerged among believers to have an integral worldview. Here is presented the first more or less complete theological system. The dogmatic teaching is revealed: about God in Himself, the relationship of the Persons (especially the first two) of the Holy Trinity, about the providential actions of God in the Old Testament, about the significance of the last period for preparing people to accept the Savior; the incarnation of Christ and His redemptive feat for the salvation of people; about the sacraments of baptism and communion and about the final destinies of the world and man: the Antichrist, the universal judgment and the earthly kingdom of Christ. – All these points are stated on the basis of Holy Scripture; confirmed in many cases by the testimony of Church Tradition (not excluding the erroneous teaching about the 1000-year kingdom) and substantiated on the data of reason. Thus, their disclosure could well satisfy even very well educated Christians. Irenaeus’ work also responded to the most pressing needs of the moment. The Church of Christ at that time was experiencing a very important period of precise clarification of its doctrine, internal organization and struggle against heresies and schisms. The Holy Father, accordingly, especially strongly puts forward the doctrine of the need to be guided in everything by Holy Scripture and the Apostolic oral Tradition; speaks of the significance of the Church as the custodian of this Tradition and interpreter of Scripture; promotes and defends the authority of the episcopate; marks the beginning of the establishment of the canon of St. books of the New Testament (the Gospels are no more and no less than four); speaks of the need to belong to the Church, for outside it there is neither truth nor salvation. And to this day, the work of Irenaeus has retained its significance. First of all, as a document for the history of Gnosticism. The own writings of the heretics published in Contra haereses, as we said above, are almost completely lost (with minor exceptions). The works of church writers who opposed gnosis, which appeared before Irenaeus, have not reached us either. Essay by St. Father is now therefore an almost indispensable source of information about many of the ancient Christian Gnostics. And it is unlikely that it will ever lose its significance. At the same time, in it we have a remarkable example in its completeness and thoroughness of what methods and means were used by the Christian Church of the 2nd century. in the fight against the new movement. This work is also very interesting from a theological point of view, as the first experience of a system of church worldview, created almost at the dawn of Christianity; as an indicator of what the Church of the 2nd century lived, was interested in, and allowed. burning questions for her. Chapter II. "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" 1. Evidence of antiquity and the discovery of the work The first evidence of this work, as we have already seen, in 1838 is found in Eusebius. In V, 26 of his “Ecclesiastical History” he says: “In addition to the above-mentioned writings and epistles of Irenaeus, there is also a very short, but especially necessary word of his against the Hellenes, called “On Knowledge” (Περὶ ἐπιστήμης). There is also another, dedicated by him to a brother named Marcian, which contains proof of the apostolic preaching (καὶ ἄλλος, ὅ ν ἀνα – τέθεικεν ἀδελφ ῳ Μαρκιανῷ το ὔ νομα, εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος ). There is also a “Book of Miscellaneous Sermons...” 1839 Jerome conveys this message much more briefly: Irenaeus “wrote 5 books “Against Heresies”, a small essay against the pagans, an essay “On Discipline”, to Brother Marcian on the Apostolic Sermon (et de disciplina aliud, et ad Marcianum fratrem de Apostolica praedicatione), “The Book of Various Teachings”....” 1840 Rufinus, giving a translation of Eusebius, somewhat changed the meaning of the above quote. “In addition to those books that we previously mentioned,” he reads, “there is also an excellent work by Irenaeus “Against the Gentiles,” which he entitled “On Discipline,” written to a certain Marcian (extat... volumen egregium adversus gentes, quod (Irenaeus) De disciplina adtitulavit, ad Marcianum quendam scribens)... 1841 Thus, Rufinus combined two, according to Eusebius and Jerome, works of Irenaeus - “On Knowledge” and “Proof” - into one. This is all we have of the "Proof" from antiquity. The work itself was considered lost until 1907. The authors who mentioned him when listing the works of Irenaeus usually limited themselves to a simple quote from Eusebius, adding a message about the loss of the creation. Some, following Rufin, interfered with it with "Περὶ ἐπιστήμης". 1842 In exceptional cases only (Dodvel, 1843 Stiren 1844) they expanded somewhat more, analyzing the concepts "κήρυγμα", " ἐπίδειξις ", " ἀπόδειξις ", etc. and in this way elucidating the real essence, purpose and content of the work. Such considerations were sometimes learned and even witty; but, of course, one could not count on more. This was the situation until the very beginning of the 20th century. In December 1904, as we have already said, 1845 the full text of this treatise was opened by Archimandrite Karapet Mkrtchyan in Armenian, along with Books IV and V of Contra haereses. Official duties did not allow, however, the scientist to begin translating the newly found work. It was completed only a year after its opening with the help of Erv. Minasyants. This translation (into German) together with the Armenian original was delivered to A. Harnack. He handed it over to Private Associate Professor Fink for review. The latter found the translation generally accurate. Harnack corrected the style and divided the work into 100 chapters (there are no divisions in the manuscript). As a result, in 1907, the first edition of Irenaeus’s work, which was considered lost until then, appeared in Armenian (S. 1–69) and German (S. 1–52) with a foreword by Mkrtchyan and an afterword with comments by A. Harnack. Also in 1907, a Russian translation of it (from German) was published; in 1908 - the second German (only) edition; in 1909 - a Dutch translation, and in 1913 - a new German edition translated by prof. Weber. 1846 According to Mkrtchyan, the manuscript containing the “Proof” should be dated back to the 13th century.. 1847 Wiethen's research, however, showed that the Armenian text of the manuscript was poorly preserved. 1848 It must therefore be assumed that the currently available codex is at least the third copy of the original text in time. Thus, the translation of this work into Armenian should be attributed to much earlier in relation to the 13th century. time. In the March-April book of the Armenian magazine “Ararat” for 1902, the work of a certain Stephen the Philosopher was published from a manuscript of the 10th century. “Against Heresies” and “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” are quoted in it. Mkrtchyan thinks that the author of this work is none other than Stefan of Siunii, a famous writer of the 8th century.. 1849 But the two quotations given by this Stephen turn out to be in an even earlier dogmatic work of Catholicos Sahak III (678–703). On this basis, Mkrtchyan, in the preface to the first edition of the “Proof,” attributed the translation of this work to Stephen’s early time, namely, to the second half of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th century. The Armenian scientist saw confirmation of his opinion in the fact that the first known mention of Irenaeus in general in Armenian literature dates back to the present period. 1850 The new discovery of the same Archimandrite Karapet in 1851 introduces, however, some amendment to his conclusion. It turned out that the “Proof” was already quoted in the work of John of Mirogomsky - “The Seal of Faith”. 1852 And as Jordan's research shows, the quotations given here are probably from a pre-existing Armenian text. 1853 But the “Seal of Faith” appeared under the Armenian Catholicos Komitas, i.e. between 612 and 628. 1854 Consequently, the time of the Armenian translation of the “Proof” must be attributed to the era earlier than the beginning of the 7th century. 1855 Conibear, 1856 and after him Witen 1857 consider it possible to believe it even in the middle of the 5th century. (both named scientists expressed their opinions before the publication of fragments from “The Seal of Faith”). It is more difficult to decide from what language the translation was made, more precisely: directly from Greek or through Syriac. Mkrtchyan avoids answering this directly. In his opinion, there is evidence for both. As is known, the “Proof” in the manuscript is connected with books IV and V of “Against Heresies”. This means that we can talk about both types of work together. But in IV, 7.1 of the Armenian text “Against Heresies,” the hymn of the Mother of God “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Magnificat) is attributed to Elizabeth, 1858, which, according to the scientist, speaks for the Syrian origin of Lk. 1, 46–47. Likewise, in the Proof itself, a quotation from Zech. 9, 9 (“behold, your king comes... sitting on a donkey, on a colt, the son of an ass”; in German: “auf einem Füllen, dem Jungen einer Eselin”), 1859 is, he thinks, a literal translation of the Syriac Hebraized text. In support of this opinion, Mkrtchyan also refers to the replacement in the Armenian text of Book IV “Against Heresies”, ch. 17, 5 1860 and 20, 2 1861 named after the prophet Malachi when quoting from him (Mal. 1:10–11; 2:10) with the name “angel” or “messenger”; although the Armenian scientist himself admits that such a transfer could have originated directly from Irenaeus. 1862 On the other hand, the text in § 43 "Proofs" from Gen. 1.1: “Baresit bara elowim basan benuam samentares” is undoubtedly given in Greek, and not in Syriac, which is closer to Hebrew, transcription. In addition, and in general, in the era when the Armenian translation of the works of Irenaeus appeared, Syrian influence in the Armenian Church fell, being replaced by Greek. In view of this, Mkrtchyan leaves the question open. 1863 The evidence given by the Armenian scientist in favor of the opinion of the translation of Ἐπίδειξις᾿ from the Syriac text cannot, however, be considered solid. The Song of Our Lady (Magnificat) is attributed to Elizabeth not only in the Armenian translation, but also in some Latin codes “Against Heresies” (Claromontanus and Vossianus). 1864 On this basis, Mkrtchyan’s collaborator Minasyants considers it possible to attribute the reading: “Elizabeth said: my soul magnifies the Lord” in IV, 7, 1 “Against Heresies” to Irenaeus himself. 1865 On the other hand, as studies by A. Harnack 1866 and T. Zahn showed, 1867 the latter variation has long existed along with the reading: “Mary said” (especially in the West). But it seems that it was least common among the Syrians. 1868 The prophecy about the entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, as Witen pointed out, 1869 was not given directly by Irenaeus according to Zech. 9, 9 (cf. also Isa. 62, 11), and according to the text of the Gospel of Matthew (21.5), where it stands, like in St. father: “Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, your king comes to you, meek, sitting on a donkey and the colt of a donkey who is under the yoke.” 1870 Mkrtchyan himself considers it possible to attribute the replacement of the name of the prophet Malachi in Contra haereses directly to Irenaeus. 1871 In addition, as Minasyants already noted, the division of books IV and V of “Against Heresies” into chapters in the Armenian translation coincides, in general, with the surviving Latin codes. 1872 Meanwhile, the Syriac translation of Contra haereses differs significantly from them in this respect. 1873 The well-known expert on Armenian, Syriac and other oriental languages, the English scientist Conybeare, adds here an authoritative statement that, according to his research, the text of the manuscript found by Archimandrite Karapet is completely free from Sirisms. 1874 If we also take into account the quotation of Gen. 1, 1, 1875, we will have to recognize the most correct conclusion that the “Proof” was translated into Armenian without the Syrian text; in all likelihood, directly from the Greek original. 1876 3. Initial title of the essay Eusebius conveys, as we have already seen, the title of the “Proofs” is vague: "" 1877 It is not clear whether “εἰς ἐπίδειξιν”, etc. is the literal title of Irenaeus’ work or only an approximate rendering of its content. Jerome's message, which is too short and obviously inaccurate in letter, as well as the erroneous transcription of Rufinus, cannot help the matter. Harnack believes that the “Ecclesiastical History” gives the literal title of the work, as it was written by Irenaeus himself, although he stipulates that such a form is very unusual for ancient church literature. But if it had simply sounded “Ἐπίδειξις”, etc., then Eusebius, according to the German scientist, would have expressed himself somewhat differently. Therefore, he recognizes the more correct title of the work: “εἰς ἐπίδειξιν.” 1878 He is followed by Wiethen 1879 and other Western European researchers of Irenaeus. 1880 In the Armenian manuscript it says: “Proof of the apostolic sermon.” Which title is more correct? Harnack argues that the meaning of Eusebius' message is controversial; his phrase can be understood in two ways. He himself takes on a form he likes more. However, it seems to us that controversial issues cannot be resolved in this way. It is necessary to refer to indisputable provisions. This in this case is the title in the Armenian manuscript. And it directly testifies to how the name of the work was given by St. Irenea. Its meaning can be rejected only when the corruption or falsification of the manuscript is proven. But while this is not the case, we must recognize it as a very important document in this matter. And therefore, the more correct title of Irenaeus’s work should be considered to be precisely what is preserved here, which in Greek can be rendered: “Ἐπίδειξις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγ ματος.” 1881 The word ἐπ ί δειξις (ἐπὶ and δείκνυμι), as correctly explained by Dodvel 1882 and Witen, 1883, means, in fact, “demonstration”, “indication”, “announcement” of something. Thus, its Russian translation – “Proof” – is not entirely accurate. The latter corresponds not to ἐπ ί δειξις, but to ἀπόδειξις (proof of any truth, demonstration of its reliability from other extraneous grounds). Ἐπίδειξις wider ἀπόδειξις; in some cases it even contains it. So it is now. “Testimony”, “exposition” of the apostolic sermon does not exclude evidence of its truth, since the apostles themselves not only conveyed the teaching of Christ and about Christ, but also referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament, their psychological experience, etc. Ἐπίδειξις can therefore mean together the exposition and proof of the apostolic preaching. What it means in the appendix to this essay, we will show below. Κήρυγμα “sermon”, “message”. Ἀποστολικοῦ was added to it to determine that this is not an ordinary sermon, but precisely the one that the apostles proclaimed, i.e., Christian teaching. Thus, a more accurate translation of the title of St. Irenaeus will be like this: “The testimony of the apostolic sermon.” 4. Addressee of the “Evidence” The addressee of the book was “brother Marcian,” as Eusebius already says and as it appears at the beginning of this work. Who he is is unknown. Lightfoot suggests that this is the same Marcian who is mentioned in the Martyrium Polycarpi as his copyist. 1884 However, such a comparison does not bring light: we know just as little about that Marcian. Moreover, as Harnack already noted, in the Moscow Martyrtum manuscript this name is rendered not by Marcian, but by Marcion. 1885 Therefore, it is risky to even identify the addressee of the book being analyzed with that copyist. Based on the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” itself, we can only say that there were very friendly relations between Marcian and Irenaeus, as evidenced by the form of address (in the German translation “mein lieber Marcianus”) and the very fact that this work was sent to him. The Holy Father loved to talk with him when they lived together. At the time of writing the Proof, Marcian, however, was not in Lyons; he obviously lived somewhere in another province. That is why Irenaeus sends him his essay, providing it with the following note: “Since we are currently physically separated from each other, I would like to seize the opportunity to talk to you in writing and briefly outline the preaching of the truth in order to strengthen your faith.” The last expression, as well as the final words of this section of 1886, give at the same time some reason to believe that the addressee of St. father did not have a hierarchical rank in 1887 and was not even considered a firm Christian. Ἐπίδειξις was for him something like a catechism, and he himself could be called a νεόφυτος convert. 1888 Judging by the fact that in 91–92, 95 and other chapters Irenaeus very strenuously spreads about the non-binding nature of the Mosaic Law for Christians, one can think that Marcian came from the Jews and, perhaps, still held a view contrary to Irenaeus on this issue; although this cannot be stated with positive certainty. 1889 5. Time of writing “Proof” Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor the Armenian manuscript speak about the time of writing the “Proof”. Therefore, when determining it, it is necessary to rely solely on the data contained in the essay itself. And here, first of all, attention is drawn to the reference of St. Irenaeus on his anti-Gnostic work: “All such (heretics) are wicked and blaspheme their Creator and Father, as we showed in “Refuting and Convicting the Falsely Called Gnosis.” 1890 From here it is clear that the “Proof” was written later than “Against Heresies”, in all likelihood, in the 90s already in the 2nd century. Witen draws on Chapter 48 of the treatise under consideration to resolve this issue. Here, by the way, Irenaeus says that the Lord “will judge all people and kings who now hate Him and persecute His name.” 1891 The Dutch scientist pays exceptional attention to the word “kings”. In his opinion, the plural in which it appears indicates the simultaneous existence of several emperors in the Roman state at the time of writing the Proof. But it is known from history that a similar situation took place in 193–196, when three contenders fought for the imperial throne: Niger, Q. Albinus and Septimius Severus. Perhaps, Viten thinks, Irenaeus was a direct witness to that war between Albinus and the North, when the opponents met in Gaul. This event falls on the year 196. It is this that Witen recognizes as the date of writing the “Proof”. 1892 To us, such an interpretation of the above excerpt seems, however, artificial and does not have sufficient grounds in the text. Witen, it seems to us, attributed to Irenaeus what in reality St. Father didn't speak. However, in our opinion, Chapter 48 can still be involved in resolving this issue. The above phrase indicates that at the time of writing the “Proof” the Church apparently did not already use the world (as it was at the time of Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies”); 1894 and, on the contrary, was persecuted. But we know from history that Emperor Commodus was tolerant of Christians. Their situation changed for the worse under Septimius Severus. 1895 One can therefore think that the “Proof” was written after the death of Commodus (t 192) already during the reign of Severus (193–211); It is better to consider the mid-90s as the time of its appearance. II century. 6. Contents of “Evidence” The content of the “Proof” is as follows. The first chapter is a preface. St. Irenaeus, turning to Marcian, indicates the reason and purpose of sending him the essay. At the time of its writing, friends were separated physically, unable to personally converse on matters of faith and piety. Meanwhile, this would be useful, especially for Marcian. In exchange for the conversation, Irenaeus sends this work “as an important written reminder, so that Marcian may receive much in a little, and in a little know all the members of the body of truth, and in a short time hear the proofs of the divine.” Here, as we see, the general outline of the treatise is given together: it will communicate, on the one hand, “the knowledge of all members of the body of truth,” and on the other, it will present “evidence of the divine” content of it. If Marcian accepts and puts into practice what Irenaeus intends to communicate to him, then his salvation will become fruitful; he will be able to give an answer to everyone who asks about hope and will not stray from the right path of piety. From the second chapter, the work of Irenaeus, in the proper sense, begins: In it, three parts can be quite clearly distinguished: a) introduction (chap. 2–3), b) exposition (chap. 4–97) and c) conclusion (chap. 98–100). At first St. the father puts forward an indisputable position recognized by all: man is a living being, consisting of soul and body, and it is necessary and proper for him to preserve both in a good state, that is, normal, characteristic of them by nature. This is what “purity” is. It is preserved in the body when a person abstains from everything harmful and sinful; in the soul - when faith in God is maintained and the truth is preserved without any addition or subtraction. Body and soul are closely connected. Through the desecration and pollution of the first, piety becomes gloomy and sad; but on the other hand, if a lie penetrates the soul, then the body is distorted, desecrated and loses its beauty. It is therefore necessary to take care of both together. “For what good is it to know the truth in words, but to defile the body and commit evil deeds? Or, on the other hand, what benefit can cleanliness of the body actually bring if there is no truth in the soul?” That's how it should be. But that's not how it happens in reality. There are tribes and people who do not know or worship God. There are heretics who, with their insidious and perverse teachings, corrupt not only themselves, but also others. There are sinners who have knowledge of God, but do not keep His commandments. All this needs to be feared. To preserve our soul and body in a normal state, we must, according to St. Irenaeus: a) “keep the rule of faith intact and b) fulfill the commandments of God, believing in God and fearing Him, since He is Lord, and loving Him, since He is the Father.” But the main thing seems to be St. to the father, faith associated with the knowledge of the truth. For moral and practical life, keeping the commandments (“doing”) stems from faith, thus being derivative. Faith is the constant guardian (Wieten 1896 in Dutch steun basis) of our salvation. Therefore, “it is necessary and worthy to apply a lot of care to it in order to achieve a true understanding of existence.” The knowledge of the truth is given to us in the canon of faith, read at baptism. In it, faith “teaches us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father and in the name of Jesus Christ, the incarnate and died and risen Son of God, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and regeneration into God; so that we would not be children of dead people, but of the eternal and unchangeable God, (reminds) that the eternal and unchangeable is God and He stands high above every derivative being, 1897 and everything is subordinate to Him, and those subordinate to Him all became His own, so that God would rule and be Master not over anything else, but over His own; (reminds) that everything is God’s and that therefore God is Almighty and everything is from God.” This “rule of faith” (καν ὼ ν τῆς πίστεως) is the theme of the main and most extensive part of Irenaeus’ treatise (chap. 4–97). It, in turn, can be divided into two sections: 1) 4–42a; 1898 2) 42b-97. The first sets out in more detail the content of the canon, i.e. it gives exactly what is denoted by the Greek term ἐπίδειξις “indication”, “demonstration”. First at St. Father is talking about God in His being and the Persons of the Holy Trinity (chap. 4–7). The world and people exist. They could not have occurred by themselves and are not able to maintain their existence. There must be a culprit behind all of this. This is what God is, one, not descended from anyone, but containing everything in His power. Everything that exists originated from Him. “The matter is presented as follows: God the Father, uncreated, invisible, Creator of everything, above whom there is no other God; and since God is a rational Being, therefore He created what happened with the Word; and since God is Spirit, He adorned everything... Since the Word affirms, that is, gives life and gives existence to what happened, 1899 and the Spirit orders and forms various forces, then in all justice the Word is called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God” (chapter 5). Therefore, the rule of our faith and the basis of knowledge, according to Irenaeus, is this: “God the Father is the unoriginating, incomprehensible, invisible, one God, Creator of everything; this is the very first article of our faith. The second position is the Word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who appeared to the prophets according to the image of their prophecy and following the definition of the Father, through whom all things came into being, who also at the end of times, in order to bring everything to perfection and restore (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι recapitulare) in Himself, 1900 became a man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show life and bring about a communion of union between God and man. And the third position is the Holy Spirit, by whom the prophets prophesied and the fathers learned divine things, and the righteous were led to the path of righteousness, and who at the end of times was poured out in a new way on humanity throughout the whole earth, renewing man for God” (chapter 6). “Therefore, the baptism of our rebirth,” concludes Irenaeus, “is accomplished through these three provisions, when God the Father gives us grace for rebirth through His Son through the Holy Spirit. For those who carry the Spirit of God within themselves are brought to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son brings them to the Father, and the Father allows them to partake of incorruption. Consequently, without the Spirit it is impossible to approach the Father; for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son is through the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is communicated by the Son, in accordance with His ministry, according to the good pleasure of the Father, to those whom the Father wills and as the Father wills” (chapter 7). However, God is not a self-enclosed being. He manifests His activity in relation to the world as Creator, Manager, Provider and Judge. He is the God of all: Jews, Gentiles, believers and unbelievers. At the end of time, He revealed the Gospel of adoption to believers: for the Jews He was Lord and Lawgiver; to the pagans He revealed Himself as the Creator and Almighty. For all Jews, pagans, believers and unbelievers, He is the Judge (chapter 8). Having given such a general description of God’s relationship to the world, St. Irenaeus subsequently proceeds to present the history of these relations (chap. 9–42a). First of all, the Lord created heavenly powers: angels, archangels, cherubim and seraphim. Their purpose is to glorify God with an unceasing song of praise (chap. 9-10). Then man was created. To produce it, the Lord took the purest, finest and most tender part from the earth; added His power to it to a certain extent and gave the creation His own forms, so that in appearance it would be god-like. To revive man, God breathed into him the breath of life. Man was free and independent, having been created to rule over everything on earth (chapter 11). Irene sets out the history of the divine economy among people according to the division he presented already in Contra haereses, III, 11, 8 1901 into four periods. 1902 The first embraces the time from Adam to the flood (chap. 11–18). The Holy Father consistently, briefly, simply, but accurately conveys the history of the first people from the 1903 Bible. He talks about the creation of a wife, life in paradise, the giving of the commandment, its transgression, and the consequences of the Fall. It also concerns life outside of paradise, noting the birth of Cain and Abel, the cultivation of the earth by the first people, the murder of Abel by Cain, the general corruption of humanity before the flood. This is followed by the second period - the life of Noah and his descendants before Moses (chap. 19-24). St. Irenaeus tells (again from the Bible, in general) about the global flood, the sin of Ham, the blessing to Japheth and Shem and the curse of Canaan; about the life of people after the flood, the building of the tower, the confusion of languages. Tells the story of Abraham in some detail; briefly mentions Isaac, Jacob, the sons of the latter and the resettlement of the Jews to Egypt. Chapters 25–30 recount the history of the third period: from Moses to Christ. It talks about the difficult situation of the Jews in Egypt, their expulsion from there, legislation at Sinai, condemnation to a 40-year wandering, the wandering itself and the death of Moses. Very briefly (12–15 lines) the end of the work of Moses by Joshua, David and Solomon and the activity of the Old Testament prophets among the Jews are mentioned. Chapters 30b-42a are devoted to the covenant of Christ. St. Irenaeus does not convey individual facts from the life of the Lord, but speaks only in general about the essence and fruits of His redemptive feat. Being the Son of God in spirit, Christ at the end of time became the Son of David; born before the creation of the world, always existing with the Father, appeared to the world in human form. The Word of God became flesh (chap. 30; 37). Already by the very fact of His incarnation, He reunited people with God and established peace and harmony between them, broken through sin; restored man to the state that the last one had in Adam. He destroyed death and corruption in the flesh, the power of the devil over people and sin (chapter 31). “At the same time, He showed the resurrection, Himself becoming the firstborn from the dead, and in Himself resurrected fallen man, raising his mountain to the highest part of heaven, at the right hand of the glory of the Father” (chapter 38). The promises given in the Old Testament were also fulfilled in the Lord. From Adam God promised to produce offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven. Accordingly, in the New Testament Christ called into the Church all the pagans, the children of Abraham by faith. David was promised: to establish from the fruit of his womb an eternal king, whose rule would have no end. This king is Christ, the Son of God, born of a Virgin from the line of David. He will reign forever. There is a correspondence between the work of Christ and the fall of people, only in the opposite relation. Man was created from virgin soil; the Savior came from the Virgin; humanity was defeated through the virgin’s disobedience, and through the Virgin Mary’s obedience to the Word of God received life. The crime was committed through the tree, and destroyed through the tree, on the cross (chap. 32-34). All the main moments of the Savior’s life are also closely connected with each other. “If He had not been born,” says Irenaeus, “he would not have died; if He had not died, He would not have risen from the dead; and if he had not risen from the dead, he would not have conquered death, and its dominion would not have been abolished; and if He had not conquered death, how could we, who had fallen into death from the beginning, rise to life?” (ch. 39). Christ was not, however, alone in His earthly activities. Even before the coming of the Savior, the Forerunner prepared the people to receive the Word of Life. After the Lord’s ascension, His disciples went into the world. They called the pagans to faith, showing people the way of life, converting them from idols, fornication and covetousness, and cleansing their souls and bodies with baptism with water and the Holy Spirit. They also founded the Church as the constant custodian of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. She was given the proper arrangement (chapter 41). From the second half of chapter 42, the second section (42b-97) of the presentation begins. Here we offer, in the proper sense, “proofs” of the truth of the apostolic preaching about Christ, borrowed from Old Testament prophecies. “That all this (stated about Christ) should have happened in this way, the Spirit of God announced it in advance through the prophets, so that faith would be strong in those who serve God in truth” (chapter 42b). First we talk about the personality of Christ the Savior. He was the Son of God, pre-existent with the Father. Moses prophesied about this, first of all. He says in Hebrew: “Baresit bara elowim basan benuam samentares,” which means: “The Son was in the beginning, then God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). 1904 Jeremiah testifies: “Before the morning star I gave birth to You, and before the sun Your name” (Ps. 109 and 71, 17). Therefore, the Apostle John also says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). On the other hand, the Word of God had to come down to earth after the fulfillment of times and live among people. This was typified in repeated visions and appearances of God in the Old Testament: in the form of three strangers, one of whom was the Lord (Gen. 18 and 19), to Jacob on the way to Harran (the staircase from earth to heaven); To Moses in the thorn bush (Proof. Ch. 44–46). Accordingly, the Lord is depicted in Scripture, on the one hand, as the eternal King of the nations; on the other hand, as the Redeemer and Savior of humanity. The first is clearly stated by David: “The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. The Lord will send a rod of strength from Zion, and rule in the midst of Your enemies” (Ps. 109). The second side of Christ’s activity (on earth) is predicted through Isaiah in the following words: “And now thus says the Lord, who formed Me from my mother’s womb to be His servant, that I might gather Jacob and gather Israel to Him... And He said: It should be important to You that You are called My servant, in order to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back the scattered Israel. And I have made You the light of the nations, so that You may be a source of salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:5-6; Proof. Ch. 48-52). The appearance of the Lord on earth and the salvation of mankind could not, however, happen otherwise than through the incarnation of Christ. And this was also predicted in the Old Testament (the prophecies about the birth of the Savior are given by Irenaeus in chapters 53–66). Isaiah says: “The Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and you will call Him Immanuel; He will eat butter and honey” (Isa. 7:14–15). From this it is clear that Christ had to appear as an ordinary person. Again the same prophet says: “Unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and He is called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). It was also foretold in the Old Testament where, in what country the Son of God would be born, and from what people he would come. Moses prophesied: “The prince of Judah will not fail, nor the leader of his feet, until He to whom this is ordained comes, and He will be the hope of the nations” (Gen. 49: 10–11). And again he says: “A star will rise from Jacob, and a leader will arise from Israel” (Num. 24:17). Isaiah also states: “And a branch will come from the root of Jesse, and a flower will come from his root. And the Spirit of God will rest on him” (Isaiah 11:1-2). All this points to the Jewish people, the tribe of David and Abraham. The Prophet Micah definitely names the place of birth of Christ: “And you, Bethlehem of Judea, are not small among the leaders of Judah; For from you will come a ruler who will shepherd My people Israel” (Mic. 5:2). And David says: “The Lord swore to David a true oath, which He will not repudiate: I will set the fruit of your womb on your throne” (Ps. 131:10-11). It was also predicted by the prophets that Christ would perform healings and raise the dead (Proof. Ch. 67). Isaiah says: “He bore our infirmities and laid our sorrows upon Himself” (53:54). And again: “On that day the deaf will hear written words and the eyes of the blind will see in darkness and darkness” (Isa. 29:18); “The dead will rise, and those who are in the graves will rise” (26, 19). There are especially many prophecies in the Old Testament about the suffering and shameful death of Christ (Irenaeus devotes them to chapters 68–82). Isaiah says: “How many were amazed at You: so disgraced was His face among men... He had neither form nor glory; and we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty. But His appearance is despised and belittled more than other people; a man with wounds and accustomed to endure suffering, for His face is turned away. He was despised and they did not value Him. And He bears our sins and endures illness for our sake. And we thought that He was in sickness and ulcers from God, while He was wounded for our sins and tormented for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed” (Isa. 52:13–53.5). Also in Jeremiah it says: “He offers cheeks to those who beat Him, He is fed up with reproach” (Lamentations Jer. 3:30). David prophesies: “Why are the peoples in turmoil and the nations plotting vain things? The kings of the earth rise up and the princes take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed One” (Isa. 2:1-2). The image of the suffering of Christ was also foreshadowed: the tradition for 30 pieces of silver (Jer. 32:6); crucifixion (Isa. 65:2); division of vestments (Ps. 21:19); eating vinegar with gall (Ps. 68:22). There are passages concerning the resurrection of the Lord: “I lay down and fell asleep, I arose, for the Lord will protect Me” (Ps. 3:6; Proof. Ch. 73). The ascension into heaven is also predicted by David: “He ascended on high, He took captivity captive; He accepted and bestowed gifts on people” (Ps. 67:19); “Lift up, O princes, your gates; lift up, eternal gates, that the King of glory may enter in” (Ps. 23:7; Proof, Ch. 83–84). Having ascended, the Lord sat down at the right hand of God the Father, assumed power over the whole world and will again come to judge humanity. All this was also prophesied in the Old Testament. “Thus says the Lord to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies under Your feet” (Ps. 104:1). And again: “From the edge of heaven His departure and His return to the (other) edge of heaven, and nothing will remain hidden from the heat of His judgment” (Ps. 18:7; Proof. Ch. 85). Summarizing what has been said, Irenaeus concludes: “If the prophets predicted about the Son of God that He would appear on earth, announced where on earth, how and in what form He would appear, and the Lord took upon Himself all these prophecies, then our faith in Him is firmly founded, and the tradition of the sermon is true, that is, the testimony of the apostles (about Him)” (Chapter 86). The Old Testament prophets predicted the further fate of His work on earth after the ascension of the Lord: the sending of the apostles to preach (Is. 52:7), as well as the fact that they came out of Judea and Jerusalem (Is. 2:3) and proclaimed the teachings of Christ throughout the world (Ps. 18:5; Proof. Ch. 86–87). The prophets also outlined the general character of the New Testament in contrast to the Old (Irenaeus devotes chapters 88–97 to this issue). Christ redeemed people with His blood and granted salvation to everyone. A new period began with Him. There should now be no place for the legislation of Moses; the latter's prescriptions are not binding on Christians. This is what Isaiah says: “Do not remember the former things and do not think about the things that once happened. Truly I am doing something new that is already happening, and you will recognize it. And I will create rivers in the desert and in the dry desert to give water to My chosen people” (43:19-20). The main focus of the people of the New Covenant should not be on external affairs, but on the renewal of the spirit, as Jeremiah prophesied: “The covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days is this: I will put My law in their minds and write it in their hearts” (31, 32-33). Not only Jews, but also pagans should join the Church of Christ. About the latter, Isaiah says: “Thus says the God of Israel: On that day man will turn his gaze to the Creator, and his eyes will be fixed on the Holy One of Israel; and they will not look at the church of idols and at the work of their hands, which their fingers (idols) have created” (17, 7-8). And again: “I revealed myself to those who did not ask about Me, I was found by those who did not seek Me. I said: Here am I, to a people who have not called on my name” (65:1). The prophet Hosea also proclaimed: “And I will say not to My people: You are My people, and not the beloved will be beloved. And in the place where they said about them, “You are not my people,” there they will be called sons of the living God” (2:23; 1:10). The pagans in the Church became the first, and the rebellious people (the Jews) were the last. This is what Moses said in Deuteronomy: “You have irritated Me not with God and have grieved Me with your vain idols; and I will provoke you to anger with a nation that is not wise; I will provoke you to grief with a foolish people” (32:21). Therefore, Irenaeus concludes his review of prophecies about the New Testament, we do not need any Law as an educator. We speak to the Father and stand before Him face to face... The law will no longer say: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” to one who never has lustful desires for another man’s wife. And the Law will no longer say: “Thou shalt not kill” to one who has removed from himself all anger, all enmity... You cannot demand tithes from someone who brings all his property to God and leaves his father, mother, all his relatives and follows the Word of God... (Ch. 96). In Christ a new life began, a truly human life, characteristic of normal human nature (Chapter 97). Concluding his work, Irenaeus says: “This (all of the above) is a precious preaching of the truth, and this is the image of our salvation, and this is the way of life that the prophets predicted, Christ fulfilled, the apostles passed on, and the Church entrusted to her children throughout the world. It (the truth) must be preserved in its entirety, with a strong will and in a godly manner, with good deeds and a sound direction of thought” (Chapter 98). The last requirement is especially important in view of the heretics who have already appeared, who distort the basic provisions of the rule of faith (cf. Ch. 6–7). Some of them blaspheme God the Father, presenting Him as different from our Creator. (The false teaching of such was analyzed by the Holy Father earlier in “Refuting and Convicting the Falsely Named Gnosis.”) Others do not attach any importance to the descent of the Son of God and the economy of His incarnation. Others do not accept the gifts of the Spirit and reject prophetic gifts. “We must beware of all such,” Irenaeus convinces, “and avoid their morals if we really want to be pleasing to God and receive salvation.” (Ch. 99–100). As can be seen from the content presented, the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching differs in character from the Contra haereses. While there St. Irenaeus primarily polemicizes with the Gnostics; here the polemic occupies a very insignificant place. With the exception of chapters 99 and 100, and even the end of the 2nd, where in passing St. the father speaks about heretics, the rest of the essay is presented in the calm tone of a Christian teacher. The main theme of the treatise is the “rule of faith,” and the “Proof” itself, according to Irenaeus, is only a “written reminder” of what was conveyed to Marcian - obviously a neophyte of Christianity - orally before baptism. Thus, we have before us nothing more than a catechetical word, which usually preceded baptism. 1905 And St. the father no longer appears to us as an antignostic polemicist, but as a Christian teacher, a catechist. According to Wieten's research, the "Proof" is very similar to the catechumenate, as set out in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 39), and especially to the catechetical writings of Augustine. The similarity with the latter is so great that the damaged text of the Proof can even be corrected according to Augustine. 1906 However, this difference in the nature and subject of the works of St. the father does not destroy what they have in common. These are, for example, methods of evidence. Both in Contra haereses and in Ἐπίδειξις Irenaeus uses arguments of reason and quotations from Holy Scripture, although in the latter, in accordance with the nature of the work, the texts of the Old Testament predominate. There are many similarities in content. In the newly discovered monument, only the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (Chapter 47; cf. Chapters 6–7) and the freedom of Christians from the Old Testament Law (Chapter 87–96) is more clearly expressed. The remaining points are mostly the same as in Contra haereses. Only there are the views of St. the father has to be reconstructed from different places in the composition; here they are brought into a larger system and unity. Wieten and Harnack point out (and Wieten cites in full) parallels from Contra haereses to almost every page of the “Proof,” although, as Prof. rightly remarked, N.I. Sagardy, 1907 cannot, on this basis, be considered the latter as a mosaic of expressions taken from the first. It is completely independent; the commonality of thoughts is explained by the fact that the same author writes about the same subjects both here and there. 7. Authenticity of the “Evidence” The work found by Archimandrite Karapet is fully consistent with the information we have about the “Proof” of Eusebius. Same title, same author, same addressee. The content of this manuscript, as we have shown, also fully corresponds to its title. The method of work and the system of evidence are the same as Contra haereses. The essence of theological views is also almost identical here and there, with small additions in the “Proof”. There are, however, some ambiguities and incomprehensible places (such as the doctrine of the seven heavens: - Chapter 7; the name of the Son of God by the finger that extends from the Father to the Holy Spirit - in Chapter 26 1908, etc.). But we must not forget that we are, first of all, dealing with a translation, and not the original. And the Armenian manuscript is at least the third copy from the original codex. Many ambiguities have already been eliminated by Conibear and Witen. One might think that with time everything else will become clear. In view of sufficient positive data, the newly discovered work was unanimously recognized as genuine by scientists from all countries: Germany (Harnack, 1909 Bonwetsch, 1910 Kuntze 1911), England (Conybeare, 1912 Harris), 1913 Holland (Wieten), 1914 Italy (Manucci), 1915 Russia (N.I. Sagarda) 1916, etc. 8. Meaning of "Evidence" Compared with the theological teaching of Contra haereses, as we have already seen, the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching does not present anything completely new. But it somewhat complements what was said there about the Holy Trinity and freedom from the Old Testament. Some of its advantages also lie in the fact that here Christian teaching is brought into a larger system and more accurately processed; whereas in the first work Irenaeus, of necessity, had often to follow the plan of his opponents, dissecting their views point by point and presenting his own views only in parts. The “Proof” is much more valuable in church-historical terms. This is a censorious word. It contains “all parts of the body of truth,” that is, church teaching. From it, along with Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, we can judge what the Christians of the first centuries believed to be the essence of Christianity; what kind of catechumen was used before baptism. In it, Irenaeus himself appears from a new side - as a shepherd, a catechist, a Christian teacher. And at the present time, this book can be useful to every believer, especially those unfamiliar with Christian teaching or converts. Here the main points of Christian dogma are clearly, simply, and briefly stated: about God, the Persons of the Holy Trinity, about Christ, His redemptive feat, about man, about the Old and New Testaments. The entire history of mankind, starting with Adam, is briefly conveyed. All provisions relating to the New Testament, in particular Christology, are confirmed by texts from Holy Scripture, which for a sincere believer serves as the most convincing proof of the reliability and unconditional truth of the entire Christian doctrine. Chapter III. Unsurvived and doubtful writings 1. “On unity of command, or on the fact that God is not the author of evil” (Περὶ μοναρχίας) This work of Irenaeus is mentioned by Eusebius 1917 and Jerome. 1918 It has not reached our time in its complete form. Only one excerpt from it has been preserved in the Church History. 1919 It was directed against the heretic Florin, whom we have already discussed above. 1920 Judging by the fragment, Irenaeus in his letter directly accused Florinus of heresy; and comparing his teaching with earlier systems, he came to the conclusion that he surpassed all the Gnostics. His teaching is different from that of the Church. Nothing like this was ever conveyed to him by the elders or apostolic disciples. Even from a universal human point of view, it cannot be considered sound and correct. 1921 The title of the message makes it clear; that St. were subjected to it. father's criticism and particular points in Florin's teaching. His view of God was refuted and the Orthodox teaching about the unity of command of the Divine was opposed to it. Considering him a heretic, St. Irenaeus, however, did not despair of the possibility of returning him to the fold of the Church. Perhaps the latter was even the purpose of the letter. His tone is soft. The Holy Father, in his own expression, speaks condescendingly (πεφεισμένως). He tries to influence Florin by referring to the childhood years they spent together under the guidance of their common teacher, Polycarp of Smyrna. 1922 The time of compilation of this message, as we said above, 1923, in all likelihood, refers to the 80s. II century. This follows from the following considerations. Florinus is not mentioned by Irenaeus in his great anti-Gnostic work written around 185–189. This silence can best be explained by the fact that St. the father still admitted the possibility of Florin returning to the Church and does not speak about him in Contra haereses, fearing to irritate him and thus strengthen him in heresy. 1924 But this is exactly how he treated Florin during the period of writing Περὶ μοναρχίας. 1925 Consequently, the time of composition of both works approximately coincides. The last assumption is also confirmed by the fact that St. Irenaeus presents himself in the passage as a rather elderly man, and, moreover, as the custodian of the apostolic tradition. This means that at the time of writing the letter he was already a bishop, having received this rank, probably much earlier. On the other hand, in the 90s. in Florin we see a change: he finally leaned towards Valentinianism, which had not yet happened in the present case. Therefore, push back the date Περὶ μοναρχίας below the 80s. It's also not possible. However, it is impossible to determine it more precisely. That’s why we use the general term “eighties.” 1926 The passage quoted by Eusebius is of great importance in determining the year of birth of Irenaeus, 1927 in deciding the question of his relationship with Polycarp 1928 and in the history of Florinus. 1929 About the last St. the father says here that his views were heretical, because they concerned Christian dogmas (τὰ δόγματα). The same is clear from his comparison with the Gnostics. 1930 On the other hand, however, it is stated that they were not professed by the heretics who were before Florin; therefore, they were new, original and different from other similar systems. In addition, St. the father does not despair of the possibility of Florin returning to the fold of the Church. This means that his teaching still retained something in common with the church. But these are precisely the features that characterize Florinus’s views as presented in Agapius’s “History.” Perhaps that is why the latter’s message is a transcription of the contents of the entire Περὶ μοναρχίας or part of it. This is very likely. In any case, it is almost certain that the data of the Arab scientist refer to the same time. 1931 Tsang suggests in 1932 that Philastrius also used the work under discussion in his work “On Heresies.” 1933 2. "The Book of Eight" (Περὶ ὀγδοάδος) This work is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (together with Περὶ μοναρχίας). 1934 It was written, like the last one, regarding the heresy of Florinus (δἰὅν - by Eusebius) and was probably addressed to him. This happened already when Florinus leaned towards Valentinianism (ὑποσυρό μενον τῇ κατά Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάν ῃ). 1935 Obviously, the first letter of Irenaeus did not have the desired effect. That's why he sends the second one. Judging by the title, the Gnostic doctrine of the eight eons, and perhaps other misconceptions of Florinus, are refuted here. Eusebius 1936 and Jerome 1937 place it after Περὶ μοναρχίας. In addition, at the time of writing the latter, as we know, Florinus was not yet a decisive Valentinian, as he now turns out to be, but held independent views. Consequently, the time of compilation of the present work must be placed below Contra haereses and Περὶ μοναρχίας. It is very likely that it was written simultaneously with the letter to Pope Victor about Florinus, i.e. around 190–191. 1938 Only the title and a small excerpt from it have reached us in the “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20, 2), where Irenaeus exhorts the copyist of the book to carefully rewrite it, then compare it with the original and add a real spell to the copy. 1939 Eusebius says that in the book itself of St. the father “considered himself one of the first successors of the apostles,” that is, he presented himself as the custodian of the apostolic tradition. 1940 Massuet thinks that the fragment from the unknown work of Irenaeus, cited by Leontius of Byzantium and first published in Gallois’s Vita Irenaei (R. 507), which speaks of the purity and splendor of the body of Christ, inside adorned with the Word, and outside guarded by the Spirit, belongs to the same work. The basis for this assumption was that in the Paris Code No. 2951 a passage with the same content was preserved with the inscription: Βαλεντίνου ". Massuet believes that the quotation given here and there is taken from the anti-Gnostic work of St. father. But since there is no such passage in Contra haereses, then, obviously, it was in another similar work, i.e. Περὶ ὀγδοάδος. The Syriac passage printed by Harvey under No. XXV is also very similar to this fragment. 1942 It is difficult to decide with certainty how right Massuet is. His opinion is based, in fact, on the expression κατὰ Βαλεν τίνου .. But after all, Περὶ ὀγδοάδος was not directed against Valentine himself, but against Florin. 1943 Perhaps the fragment was borrowed from some anti-Gnostic sermon by St. father? 1944 Harvey also refers to Περὶ όγδοάδρς a Greek fragment (found in Massuet under No. XLV, 1945 in the Russian translation - XLI, 1946 and in Harvey himself - XLIII 1947), which reads: “It is not easy for a soul obsessed with delusion to change its conviction.” It may very well be, however, that this quote was taken from Contra haereses, III, 2 1948 or also from the “Book of Miscellaneous Teachings.” 1949 3. "On the Schism" (Περὶ σχίσματος) This essay was written against Vlast. As we have already seen, the latter was a Roman schismatic who probably spoke on the Easter issue. 1950 Judging by the fact that Eusebius speaks about him both times together with Florinus, whom he already exposes as a heretic, one can think that both acted simultaneously and precisely when Florinus leaned toward Valentinus’ system. 1951 Probably, the essay against Vlast was written simultaneously with Περὶ ὀγδοάδος, i.e. either in 190 or 191. To this day, only its title has been preserved by Eusebius (πρὸς Βλάστός περὶ σχίσματος – V, 20, 1) and the name of the addressee 1952 (cp.: V, 15). 1953 Harvey suggests that it contains a fragment concerning the question of Easter, addressed to a certain Alexandrian. 1954 However, Vlast was probably of Phrygian origin, 1955 and acted in Rome (Euseb. V, 15, 1). There is no information about his connection with Alexandria. Therefore, the assumption of the English scientist can hardly be accepted. 1956 Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” cites an excerpt from a letter from Irenaeus on behalf of the Gallic Christians to Pope Victor (V, 24, 12–17). 1957 This message concerned the Easter issue and is important for the history of the latter. 1958 Researchers read his text differently (Ziegler, Tsang, Dodvel, Grabe, etc.). We have already shown what we think the correct reading is. 1959 They also indicated the reasons and circumstances under which the message was written. It dates back to the end of the Easter dispute of 190–192. 1960 Now we just have to decide the question: did Irenaeus write one letter to Victor or several? T. Tsang 1961 affirms the first and adds to the fragment given by Eusebius an excerpt from Maximus the Confessor and a Syriac printed by Harvey. 1962 Harnack 1963 and others, on the contrary, say that St. my father wrote to dad at least twice, and maybe more. In support of his opinion, Tsang refers to Eusebius, in particular, to the fact that he mentions and cites part of only one letter, while nothing is said about the others. 1964 Harnack accepts, in addition to Eusebius, the testimony of Jerome and Photius. The latter, in his “Library,” notes that Irenaeus wrote to Victor “often” (“πολλάκις γραφεῖ”). 1965 Tsang, however, takes away the force of this evidence by asserting that Photius gives in this case a not particularly accurate translation of Jerome, and his words cannot have independent meaning. 1966 Jerome’s message in the original reads as follows: “His (Irenaeus’) other letters to Victor, Bishop of Rome (et aliae ad Victorem... epistolae), on the issue of celebrating Easter, are also known, in which he convinces Victor that he should not, without particularly good reasons, dissolve unity with the society of bishops of other Churches. For Victor thought that many Asian and eastern bishops who celebrated at the same time as the Jews, on the 14th day of the month, should be condemned. But even those who disagreed with the aforementioned bishops regarding the day of Easter did not agree with this opinion of Victor.” 1967 Tsang argues that Jerome cannot be referred to either. In his message he conveys data from “Church History”. But he confused and distorted them, referring to Victor those letters that were sent by Irenaeus to the heads of other Churches on the same issue of Easter. 1968 We agree with the German scientist that Jerome cannot be considered an independent witness and that he sometimes distorts Eusebius’s reports about Irenaeus (cf. below “On Knowledge”). But it seems to us impossible to assert that in this case he distorted the data given in the “Church History”. 1969 The comparison of Jerome with Eusebius V, 24,18 is not conclusive. Jerome, in an abbreviated form, conveys everything available in the “Ecclesiastical History” about the last stage of the Easter disputes at the end of the 2nd century. (190–192). But if you carefully analyze the data of Eusebius, it turns out that the church historian says exactly the opposite of Tsan. First of all, the German scientist draws a completely illogical conclusion when, in support of his point of view, he refers to the fact that Eusebius cites only one passage from Irenaeus’ letter. Some works of St. father have not been preserved at all, with the exception of only the titles (Περὶ σχίσματος, etc.); but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Eusebius, in his account, on the contrary, clearly shows that Irenaeus wrote to Victor at least twice on the issue of Easter. Outlining the history of the Easter dispute of 190–192, he tells how, at the request of the pope, councils were convened in different cities of the world and what decisions were made at them. Among other things, the Cathedral of Lyons, headed by Irenaeus, is also mentioned. Most of the councils, in the words of Eusebius, “gave the same response from themselves,” and there are epistles (γραφή) from them (in particular, from Lyons). 1970 Only the message of the Asia Minor Churches, signed by Polycrates of Ephesus, disagreed with the opinion of the majority. This disagreement caused Victor to take the dangerous step of excommunicating the Eastern Churches from communion. Both of these events (councils and their messages, on the one hand, and excommunication, on the other) are connected by the church historian as follows: “after this (councils) the primate of the Roman Church (ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ μεν τῆς Ῥ ωμαίων προεστώς )", etc. 1971 Ἐπὶ τούτοις indicates that there is a historical sequence between councils and excommunication: after the first, a new phase of dispute begins. It is also clear from here that Victor received an answer not only from Polycrates, but also from all other councils, by the way, obviously, from Lyons. It could hardly have been otherwise. He could act so decisively only when he knew that the majority shared his opinions. Without recognizing the latter, he could have found himself in a false position: excommunicating himself from communion with the entire Church. In particular, he needed to get an answer from the Lyon Church. The latter had some connection with Rome. But most of all she had kinship with the Churches of Asia Minor. Victor could not be sure that her behavior was different from Asia Minor practice; and without receiving an answer, he could not act. Perhaps the Christians of Lyon would also have to be excommunicated? If Irenaeus’ message on behalf of the council was received by him before the excommunication of the Asia Minor Churches, then, undoubtedly, in it Irenaeus could not touch on this fact, much less “blame” Victor for such an excommunication and destruction of church unity. 1972 His last thoughts were expressed, obviously, in a second letter, written after his excommunication and about it. This is how Eusebius presents the matter. 1973 And it seems strange to us to have a different understanding of it. The conciliar messages to Rome - before the excommunication of the Asia Minor - and the reprimanding messages to Victor after him are so clearly distinguished by the church historian. 1974 The first conciliar letter dates back to the beginning of the dispute in 190–192. Nothing has survived from him. From the second there remains a rather large excerpt already mentioned and analyzed by us. Our conclusions, of course, do not in any way exclude the possibility that Irenaeus wrote other letters - besides these two - to Victor. Eusebius's narrative fully admits this. In relation to this case, there is no reason to necessarily unite all the fragments of St. father, marked with the name of Victor as the addressee, into one whole. Perhaps the passage on alms quoted by Maximus the Confessor, 1975 belongs to the first letter of Irenaeus. As for the Syriac fragment, the content does not oblige us to classify it as one of these letters. He probably formed part of the special, third, sent by Irenaeus to Victor regarding the heresy of Florinus. 1976 We've touched on this a few times before. 1977 In it St. the father demands that Victor take action against Florinus and his writings, which have already reached Gaul. The fragment has some significance in determining the year of birth of Irenaeus and for the history of Florinus. The entire message was probably written in 190–191, 1978 5. Letters to various bishops regarding the Easter dispute Immediately after an excerpt from the second letter of Irenaeus to Pope Victor, Eusebius (V, 21.18) notes: “On the occasion of the dispute that took place at that time (Easter), he (Irenaeus) had correspondence not only with Victor, but also with various, very many primates of the Churches.” 1979 The Church History does not contain a single excerpt from these letters. Judging by the letters of St. father to Victor and in general his activities in the Easter dispute, one can only think that here too he tried, on the one hand, to convince the bishops to adhere to Roman practice, and on the other, he called for peace. The time of their writing obviously dates back to the end of the same period 190–192, when the second letter to Victor was composed. Harvey 1980 contains a Syriac fragment, from the table of contents of which it is clear that it forms part of a letter written by St. Irenaeus to a certain Alexandrian, “On the Feast of the Resurrection, to be celebrated on the first day of the week.” Judging by this title, and also partly by the content of the passage, the 1981 message from which it is taken probably dates back to the era of the Easter dispute and was written about it. By the name “Alexandrian” we mean, perhaps, the primate of the Alexandrian Church. The fragment then turns out to be, apparently, the remnant of letters from Irenaeus to various bishops on the issue of Easter. 1982 In the Responsiones ad quaestiones ad orthodoxos there is also a reference to Irenaeus’ discussion about Easter (“ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγω”). 1983 Perhaps this passage also refers to the same letters of the Holy Father. 1984 Harvey also includes here a passage in Armenian with the inscription: “from St. Bishop Irenaeus – about the resurrection of the Lord.” 1985 Perhaps fragments X (about the fact that the Lord, by His mercy, saves His creatures), XII and XXXVII (about the need for the resurrection of human bodies) have the same origin. 1986 6. “On knowledge” (Περὶ ἐπιστήμης) In ch. 26 of Book V of the “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius, listing the rest of Irenaeus’ works known to him, mentions “his very short, but especially necessary word against the Hellenes, entitled “On Knowledge” (Περὶ ἐπιστήμης).” Next he has a remark about “Proof”. 1987 Jerome conveys this news in such a way that from one essay “On Knowledge” he gets two: “a small essay “Against the Gentiles” and another “On Discipline” (et Contra gentes volumen breve, et De discipllna aliud).” 1988 Rufinus, on the contrary, mixes the work under discussion into one with the “Proof”: “There is ... another outstanding work - “Against the Gentiles,” which he (Irenaeus) entitled “On Discipline,” addressing a certain Marcian (volumen egregium adversus gentes, quod de disciplina adtitulavit, ad Marcianum quendam scribens).” 1989 Nothing from the composition has survived. Judging by the title, it was an apology against the pagans (the name Ἔ λληνες in the language of the ancient Holy Fathers was usually used to refer to the pagans who persecuted Christians), written in 1990, obviously in a philosophical spirit, based on the data of reason. The time of compilation is unknown. Harvey suggests that the Greek passage, found in Min 1991 under No. XXVI, and in himself – XXIV, belongs to this work. 1992 The reason for the English scientist was, apparently, that the passage also deals with “cognition” (γνῶσιν), and on the other hand, the rational method of reasoning. However, the mention of the Holy Spirit, and not just God in general, makes it doubtful that the fragment may belong to an apologetic work directed against the pagans and towards the pagans. Rather, it can be attributed to the “Book of Miscellaneous Sermons.” 7. “Book of Various Sermons” (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων) In the same 26th chapter of Book V, Eusebius also calls the “Book of Various Sermons” (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων), belonging to Irenaeus, in which St. the father, according to the historian, “mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and quotes some sayings from them.” 1993 The term διαλέξεις, as we have already noted, 1994 refers to sermons delivered to the people in special designated places and times. 1995 Thus, this book is the fruit and indicator of the purely pastoral activity of St. father. All of it has not been preserved. But in Sacra parallela Rev. John of Damascus contains two passages that, in all likelihood, belong to one of the sermons contained in it (in Min they are numbered IX and XI). 1996 The second in the manuscript is entitled: "τοῦ ἁ γίου Εἰρηναίου ἐκ τῶν Αλέξεων (Διαλέξεων)". 1997 First, promulgated by Munter, has the inscription: "ἐκ τῶν Εἰρηναίου διατάξεων (probably also διαλέξεων)". 1998 Harvey attributes to the same collection an Armenian passage, first published by Pitra, 1999, under the title: “From the second series of homilies of St. Irenaeus, successor of the apostles. Homilies about the sons of Zebedee." 2000 Pitra himself, and after him Preobrazhensky 2001, denied the authenticity of the fragment. Harnack, 2002 Lipsy, 2003 Manucci, 2004, on the contrary, recognized. Since the publication of Jordan's work in 2005, which examined all Armenian fragments, the question of this passage has entered a new and, as it seems, final stage. It turned out that Pitra and Harvey printed only ¼ of its entire content (Jordan provides a translation of the entire fragment). 2006 There is controversy in the homily, and the Arian heretics are directly mentioned. 2007 Therefore, the essay could in no way belong to Irenaeus. The manner of speech and turns of phrase in it are also different from Contra haereses and “Evidence”. 2008 Harvey also incorrectly conveyed the title of the passage. The English scientist himself probably did not see the manuscript, but only dealt with Pitra’s edition. The latter has a note before the fragment: “Homiliarum 2”. Harvey understood it in the sense of indicating the existence of two series of homilies of Irenaeus. In reality, it only says that in the Vienna Mekhitarist Library there was a manuscript codex in two parts. Its content consisted of sermons of various fathers, among other things, and St. Irenea. The passage Pitra analyzed was taken from the second part of this code. 2009 Pipsias expresses 2010 a very probable assumption that all the Greek passages and one Syriac belong to the “Book of Sermons” (Harvey’s No. XXVT), which are taken from different catenas and are placed as interpretations on the Pentateuch, Judges and other historical books of the Old Testament, the Wisdom of Solomon, as well as on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (see also about this below). 8. "The Book Against Marcion" In Contra haereses, III, 12,12, Irenaeus promises to write a special essay against Marcion and his followers. “Marcinus and his followers turned to truncation of the Scriptures... But with the help of God I will refute them in another work (arguemus eos, donante Deo, in altera conscriptione) on the basis of what they still retain.” 2011 It is unknown, however, whether St. father his intention. To date, there is no information about the existence of such a book. Eusebius also apparently did not see it, although he mentions “Irenaeus’ promise to write it. 2012 Perhaps Irenaeus refuted Marcion in his sermons or did not have time to fulfill his intentions at all. 9. Letter from the Lyon and Vienne churches about the Lyon martyrs Ikumenius in the interpretation of 1 Peter. Ch. 3 provides a passage where Saint and Blandina are mentioned. The commentator provides it with the remark that it is taken from the work of St. Irenaeus about these martyrs (" 2013 Saint and Blandin are spoken of in detail in the letter of the Lyon and Vienne churches to the Asian and Phrygian Churches (Ecclesiastical History. V, 1). Grabe rightly notes that the passage cited by Ikumenius is an approximate, abbreviated summary of the present story. 2014 You can really be convinced of this by comparing the fragment with “Church History”, V, 1, 14–19 2015 and other places in the same chapter. 2016 Icumenius therefore obviously borrowed the content of the fragment from the indicated message. By attributing the passage to Irenaeus, he thereby attributes to him all the latter. In our place we expressed a similar assumption as very probable. 2017 The Holy Father was an outstanding man in Lyon, a presbyter, a scientist. It was most natural for him to be entrusted with the compilation of Martyrdom. Frepel finds similarities even in the style of the epistle with the language of the original writings of Irenaeus. 2018 The time of its writing probably dates back to 177 or 178, when there was a persecution of Gallic Christians. 10. "On Faith" (Περὶ πίστεως) Maximus the Confessor cites three phrases from the works of Irenaeus with the note: “From the words to Demetrius, deacon of Vienne, “On faith” (ἐκ τῶν πρός Δημήτριον διάκονον Βιαίνης περὶ πίστεως λόγων)". 2019 Similarly, the Paris Code No. 854 contains three quotations in Greek with a similar inscription (“ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς "). 2020 One excerpt here is identical to a fragment from Maxim. The other indicates the beginning of Irenaeus’s word “On Faith” (“while searching for God, listen to David, who says...”). 2021 The third is the Greek text of a fragment about the omnipotence of God previously published by Feyardentius in Latin. 2022 Apparently, Irenaeus actually wrote a special essay “On Faith,” addressed to Demetrius, a deacon from Vienna. It is possible, however, that both Maximus the Confessor and the Paris Codex refer to one of the sermons of St. father, placed in his “Collection” (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων). T. Tsang 2023 refers to this word a fragment, 2024 preserved in Syriac, 2025 Armenian, 2026 Arabic and Ethiopian 2027 languages, with Christological content. 2028 Harvey, however, considers it part of the letters of Irenaeus on the Easter question, 2029 and Jordan - borrowed from the “Book of Sermons” of St. father. 2030 For his part, Jordan includes in the work “On Faith” an Armenian fragment, printed first by Pitra, 2031 and then by himself, with the inscription: “Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, testimony of faith” or, according to the Etchmiadzin Codex: “From the word “On Faith” by Irenaeus (Eranos), Bishop of Lyons.” 2032 11. Commentaries on various books of Holy Scripture In the catenas and in some fathers, excerpts from the works of Irenaeus have been preserved, taken from nowhere, representing an interpretation in one place or another of various books of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, Wisdom of Solomon; the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, etc. Internal grounds do not give the right to deny their authenticity and belonging to St. to my father. 2033 However, it seems impossible to think that he wrote special commentaries on almost all of Holy Scripture. This would take a very long time; in addition, such activities of his would undoubtedly have been known to the ancients, at least to Eusebius. The latter, however, does not specifically talk about it. Other fathers are also silent. Obviously, there were no such comments. And it remains for us to attribute all such passages to the already known works of Irenaeus. And in this regard, the most suitable is, first of all, Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων Siacpopcov. In sermons, it is most natural to find incidental explanations of various texts. This assumption is somewhat confirmed by Eusebius when he says that the “Book of Sermons” mentions, among other things, both the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. 2034 Perhaps (the form of speech gives the right to make this conclusion), other sacred books were mentioned and commented on there. The following passages can be explained in a similar way (count according to Migné): VIII, XIV-XIX (same numbers in Russian translation), XX-XXI (no Russian translation), XXII-XXXI (Russian translation XX-XXIX), XXXII (no Russian translation), XXXIII and XXXV (Russian translation XXX, XXXII), XLI (Russian translation XXXVIII), XLII (Russian translation XXXIX), XLIII (no Russian translation), XLIV-XLVI (Russian translation XL-XLII), XLVII (no Russian translation), XLIX-L (Russian translation XLIII-XLIV), LI (no Russian translation). This also probably includes two Syriac fragments from Harvey - Nos. XXV, XXIX 2035 (Russian translation XLV, XLIX). 2036 The named scientist in his edition of the works of St. Irenaeus also printed one Syriac fragment (No. XXVI) with the inscription (in English): “From St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, from the first part of his interpretation of the Song of Songs. 2037 However, until now there has been no news of the existence of such a work by Irenaeus. And the content of the passage is doubtful: Irenaeus could hardly have expressed such a doctrine about the origin of soul and body. 2038 At best, it can also be classified as a “Book of Sermons.” Harvey, on the basis of the Syriac codex of the British Museum No. 12157, attributes to Irenaeus the composition of another special work on Elkan and Samuel, including here also the (Syrian) fragment No. XXXIX printed by him. 2039 None of the ancient fathers, however, knows about such work of Irenaeus. Harnack, in addition, notes that the expression cited by Harvey from the said code (on the basis of which the English scientist draws his conclusion) is obviously not in order. 2040 It is therefore impossible to build on it and attribute the essay on Elkan and Samuel to Irenaeus. Perhaps fragment No. XXXIX (by Harvey) was taken from the same “Book of Sermons” by St. father. Martin and Durand found a codex in the Altenberg monastery containing commentaries on the Apocalypse with the inscription: “Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.” 2041 There is some reason to attribute, in general, to St. Father's interpretation of this book could have been given by Jerome's message that it was “interpretatur Iustinus Martyr et Irenaeus.” 2042 However, as the context of the speech shows, the last expression is not entirely accurate. Jerome, in fact, wanted to say that the Apocalypse was also known to Irenaeus, i.e., in other words, he had in mind 2043 the St.’s own message. father in Contra haereses, V, 30, 1, 3, 2044 given in the “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 8, 5-7). 2045 Although, even if interpretatur is understood in the literal sense, it is not necessary to necessarily recognize the existence of special comments by Irenaeus on the Apocalypse. This expression may well be attributed to Book V of “Against Heresies,” where St. the father very often interprets Revelation, confirming his eschatological and chiliastic views. 2046 As for the found codex, it contains quotes from Ambrose, Augustine, mentions Arius 2047, etc. Therefore, it in no way belonged to Irenaeus. 2048 In the Patmos manuscript of SiA (9th or 10th century) there is a passage with the remark “Εἰρηναίου Λυγδόνων (so stands) ἐκ τῶν εἰς τὴν Γενέσιν” 2049 This, apparently, also pointed to a whole book of commentaries. But it turned out that this meant only a fragment from Contra haereses, V, 12, 2, published earlier by Pitra 2050. 12. “On the essence of everything” (Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντός οὐσίας) Patriarch Photius reports about this work. It was apparently aimed at refuting the pagans. It argued that the philosopher Plato contradicted himself; the teaching of the Platonist Antinous (or Alcinous) about the soul, matter and resurrection of the flesh is incorrect and is refuted by Christian views on the same issues; that the Hellenes should not be proud of the antiquity of their origin, for the Jews are superior to them in this respect. According to Photius, the work was attributed in his time, along with Joseph, Justin, Guy, to St. Irenaeus. 2051 Grabe found one passage from the works of St. father with the inscription: “From the second book of the writer Irenaeus that matter is not original μὴ ε ἶ ναι ἀγέννητον τὴν ὕ λην) ". 2052 The contents of the fragment and the inscription itself, apparently, somewhat confirm the message of Photius in the part concerning Irenaeus. 2053 At present, however, it is recognized that the work Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντός οὐσίας was written by Hippolytus of Rome. 2054 The message of Photius cannot therefore have any significance in its application to Irenaeus. It is hardly legitimate, however, to assume the existence of any special work of St. father (and even a two-volume one: “from the second book”) about the non-originality of matter and based on the data of the fragment found by Grabe. In terms of content, this passage can easily be attributed to one of the works of Irenaeus named by Eusebius, at least, for example, “On Knowledge,” also directed against the Hellenes. The inscription does not contradict this either. Its second half (about the non-originality of matter) conveys only the theme of the passage and, apparently, is literally taken from the passage itself. The first part (“from the second book of Irenaeus”) can be explained in the sense that in the time of St. John of Damascus (who gives an excerpt) the works of Irenaeus existed in two books, or volumes. The fragment was taken from the second volume. 13. “About the Holy Trinity” (Περὶ τῆς ἁ γίας τριάδος) In Codex Coislin. No. 276, containing Sacra parallela prep. John of Damascus, one fragment from the works of Irenaeus is given with the inscription: “ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἁ γίας τριάδος Εἰρηναίου).” Apparently, an indication is given of the existence of some special work by St. father - “About the Holy Trinity.” However, in all other manuscripts of the work of Rev. John of Damascus, this passage stands with the inscription simply “Εἰρηναίου.” 2055 Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor other ancient fathers know about the said work of Irenaeus. This is hardly why he ever wrote the essay “On the Holy Trinity.” 2056 14. “The Word against Satornin” In the newly discovered (November 1911) by Bishop Karapet Ter-Mkrtchyan work of the Armenian writer of the 7th century. John of Myrogomsky “The Seal of Faith” 2057, a fragment of the works of Irenaeus has been preserved with the inscription: “From the Word against S(a)tornin (aus der Rede, der gegen Stornin).” 2058 The passage speaks, however, of the Gnostics in general, and they are directly named: Marcion and the Marcionites, the Nicolaitans, the Valentinians and the Ebionites. The theme is mainly the history of the economy of our salvation, together with the denunciation of the wrong opinions of heretics. At the beginning, it is noticed how 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. Next we talk about the main source of Christian knowledge, Holy Scripture, regarding the attitude of heretics towards it. Some of them distorted the Gospel of Luke, throwing out. him the teaching speeches of Christ and everything related to the birth of the Lord. The letters of the Apostle Paul were also cut down. The Ebionites accepted only the Gospel of Matthew. Those who separated Jesus from Christ and said that Christ remained uninvolved in suffering, and only Jesus experienced them, boasted that they had the Gospel of Mark. Valentine's supporters mostly referred to the Gospel of John and, in addition, they themselves compiled a special book of scriptures. Unlike the heretics, St. Irenaeus expresses the right doctrine on this issue. He claims that only in the Church is Holy Scripture preserved in its entirety and purity. Orthodox bishops pass it on without any additions or subtractions. In particular, there are only four Gospels in the Church. And there should be no more and no less. Next is the Christian doctrine of God in His being. He created the world. He is omnipotent. No one can ask Him why He does something this way and not otherwise. He is the one who defeated the conqueror and freed the defeated man. From God the Father St. Irenaeus distinguishes the Word of God, the Son of God and the Spirit. The Son of God appears through the Spirit. The spirit possesses knowledge and perfection. And there is no lack in the Son. He came from the Father in royal strength and might. He is not afraid of anyone, for he is higher and stronger than everything that exists. The theology is followed by a brief anthropology. Man at the beginning was free, just as He who created him in His own image is free. It consists of spirit and body. His flesh is capable of both corruption and incorruption. The spirit is stronger than it, as Scripture says: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). Therefore, he must dominate her, control the powerless and spiritualize the bodily. The weakness of the flesh must be swallowed up by the power of the Spirit. But it happened differently. Satan took possession of man through theft, frightened the hearts of people and subjugated them to his will. However, this situation was not normal. It was necessary to restore the original order. This is what the incarnate Son of God did (follows the Christological teaching). The Word of God became man and defeated the devil, bound the mighty one with His power and thereby destroyed his power over man. The fruits of the Saviors’ redemptive feat are very great. Having defeated the devil, He thereby destroyed man's fear of him. Now man could no longer fear his enemy and, having received strength from God, have the courage to freely work out his own salvation. He was also given true knowledge, which he had previously lost. His flesh, which had previously fallen under the rule of the law of death through sin, now emerged from the power of this law and again received life. Pristine harmony was established in the relationship between spirit and body. The Spirit, being strong and strong, dominates and controls the weak flesh. Some thoughts contained in the transmitted fragment have quite close parallels to themselves in the great work of Irenaeus, especially those that relate to the attitude of the Gnostics to Holy Scripture and where the correct view of this source of Christian knowledge is set forth. 2059 The content of the passage is undoubtedly anti-gnostic. However, there is no reason to attribute it entirely to Contra haereses. There are thoughts in it that are difficult to find analogies in this work. 2060 The flow of thoughts here is quite logical, although given the current state of the text, the connection cannot be accurately established everywhere. The entire fragment gives the impression of integrity. It is possible, therefore, that it is part of some work of Irenaeus. In the Armenian manuscript it is preceded by the remark that it is taken from the Tale against Sathorninus. That he is part of the sermon is quite acceptable. It even seems to us that one can find in it a moral application, usual for teachings, precisely where the author speaks about the fruits of the Savior’s redemptive feat. Here there is a desire to instill in the listeners the idea that they can and must now implement the normal order for the purpose of restoring which the Savior came to earth. They need to have courage in the fight against sin and the devil and strive to ensure that their spirit dominates over the flesh. Confirmation of this can also be seen in the fact that the entire fragment briefly, but, in essence, fully sets out the history of the economy of our salvation. As for Sathorninus, very little is known about this heretic, so that it cannot be said with certainty whether the passage refers to him. Moreover, its content is apparently directed against the Gnostics in general. However, there is no reason to deny that the fragment belongs to the word Irenaeus specifically against this heretic. 2061 Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor other ancient teachers know, however, about the existence of such a separate work by St. father. It is most likely, therefore, that the word from which the present passage was borrowed was part of the collection of sermons of Irenaeus, of which Eusebius speaks. 2062 15. "The Word Against Kolorvas" In the same newly discovered work, “The Seal of Faith,” another excerpt from Irenaeus’s works is given with the inscription: “From the word against Kolarbos (obviously Kolorvas: aus der Rede, welche gegen Kolarbos) and his like-minded people, who (they say that) Christ, due to imperfection and under the influence of suffering, grieved and was horrified.” 2063 The topic of the speech here is the question of the union of two natures in the personality of the Savior. First, the heretics' idea about the fear of Christ is refuted. Whom could He who was mighty and the Creator of all fear fear? Such an assumption is absurd and contradicts the teaching of the apostles, who from the Scriptures proved the Divinity of the Savior. But since this opinion of the heretics is in connection with their idea, in general, of the personality of the Lord, Irenaeus considers it necessary to touch upon the last question in more detail. Some of the Gnostics argued that Jesus is the vessel of Christ, and Christ from above descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, or that Jesus is the Son, and Christ is His Father, and Christ’s Father is God. Others said that the Lord suffered imaginarily, since by nature He is incapable of suffering. Jesus, they argued, suffered, but Christ remained a stranger to suffering. It is against such and such detractors who want to destroy the believers of the Church that St. rises up. father. To refute their views, he analyzes in some detail some passages from the Gospels of Matthew and John and refers to the teaching of the Apostle Paul. His special attention is attracted by the words: “This is the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1); then: “The virgin conceived and gave birth to a Son and called His name: God with us” (Matthew 1:23); “The birth of Jesus Christ was like this” (Matthew 1:18); “The word became flesh” (John 1:14); “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1). Their analysis gives him the right to assert that Matthew and John speak of two natures in Christ, inseparably united both throughout His earthly life and during His suffering on the cross. Paul also did not know, according to him, anyone other than the Lord who was crucified and suffered, who died and rose again. As a result, Irenaeus quite confidently and definitely states, despite the heretics, 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. From divine Scripture we are taught that one and the same is Jesus Christ. Or, as St. says. father in the middle of the fragment: “There is one Jesus Christ, born and suffered, and one and the same Only Begotten Son of God, whom God, out of His immeasurable love for mankind, sent into the world.” In Christ the human and divine natures are inseparably united. He was at the same time both man and God. Some thoughts contained in this fragment have analogies to themselves in Contra haereses. But there are also those for whom it is difficult to find parallels. 2064 In any case, this passage cannot be entirely attributed to the great work of Irenaeus. The line of thinking here is quite correct; they are all united by one theme. In view of this, it is much more natural to consider this fragment as part of an unknown Greek work by St. father. 2065 Perhaps this really was the “Word against Kolorvas”, which is indicated as a source in the inscription of the passage. 2066 But since none of the ancient writers knows about the existence of such an independent work by Irenaeus, the present fragment has to be attributed to the “Book of Various Sermons” by St. father. 16. “The Sermon on the Savior’s Economy” In the “Seal of Faith” there is another fragment of the works of Irenaeus with the inscription: “From the speech on the economy of the Savior (aus der Rede, welche über die Oekonomie des Erlösers).” Its text is as follows. “For the same Word of God as God was made manifest through the Spirit of knowledge and perfection, and not through the Spirit of ignorance and imperfection. For how can perfection and flaw, > knowledge and ignorance, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, strength and powerlessness, be combined in one and the same thing? These destroy each other, just as light and darkness can never be together. But if there is light, there is no darkness. If there is strength, there is no powerlessness; if it is true, there is no lie; if there is completeness, there is no lack; if knowledge, then there is no ignorance; if perfection, then in no case is emptiness.” 2067 Part of this passage (from the beginning to the words: “these destroy each other”) is already in the fragment “Words against Satornin” that we analyzed. 2068 Some thoughts have analogies in the great anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus. However, it cannot be entirely attributed to the latter. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the fragment: the image of expressions and turns in it are the usual Irineevsky ones. 2069 Jordanes suggests that it was taken from some Christological sermon of St. father, directed against the Gnostics. 2070 It may be, however, that the passage formed part of the same teaching from which the fragment with the inscription: “From the word against Satornin” was taken. Half of the present passage is literally repeated in that fragment (No. 10 in Jordan); the content of both concerns the economy of our salvation. In any case, if there was a “Sermon on the Economy of the Savior,” then it was obviously part of a collection of sermons: ancient writers do not name it among the separate and independent works of Irenaeus. At the beginning of the 18th century, a certain X. M. Pfaff published four fragments from the works of Irenaeus, previously unknown to anyone. 2071 The question about them gave rise to a fairly extensive literature during the first half-century after their publication and in the last quarter of the last, 19th century. Harnack's study "Die Pfaff'schen Irenäus-Fragmente, als Fälschungen Pfaffs nachgewiesen" 2072 in 1900 put an end to all disputes. A German scientist examined the fragments in detail and proved that they were Pfaff’s fakes. His conclusions are so thorough and convincing that we can only set out the history of the question of the passages. X. M. Pfaff (Pfaff) 2073 was born on December 25, 1686. He received an excellent education. Gifted by nature, he acquired a good knowledge of biblical philology, patristics and other theological subjects at school. In 1706 he was sent on a business trip abroad for scientific purposes. He visited Halle, Hamburg, northern Germany, Denmark, Holland and England. During this trip, especially in Holland and England, Pfaff established relationships with many scientists and became acquainted with the libraries of those countries. At the same time, his theological views took shape under various influences. He was partly a Pietist, partly a Uniate in the spirit of Calixtus. He dreamed of uniting faiths with an inclination towards the teachings of the ancient Church. Returning from his trip, he received the position of chamberlain and chief preacher at the court of the Prince of Württemberg, heir to the throne. In this position he had to travel to Turin again. Here, in addition to performing his direct duties, he did a lot of work in the local library. He managed to find the ancient manuscript of Lactantius. And in 1713, 4 fragments of Irenaeus, allegedly found by him in the Turin Library, were also made public. Pfaff sent them to the Catholic scholar S. Maffei in Verona (Italy), along with his thoughts on the Eucharist, compiled from passages. Maffei published them (for the first time) in his “Giornale de Litterati d'Italia” (T. XVI. Art. IV. P. 226), but supplied them with a critical letter (epistola), 2074 where he expressed doubt about their belonging to Irenaeus. The Italian scientist was confused by the fact that the fragments were simply inscribed Εἰρηναίου, without the addition of Ἐπισκόπου Λουγδούνων. The way of quoting the New Testament also seemed to him unusual for St. father. The second fragment contains a reference to the Apostolic Decrees, which did not exist during the time of Irenaeus. The Eucharistic elements are also called in general by St. fathers with the term ἀντίτυπα. The same fragment speaks of the invocation of the Holy Spirit during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which Irenaeus is silent about in his other works. In the third fragment, the alleged Irenaeus speaks of fasting as a Novatian. At the same time, Maffei also disputes Pfaff’s conclusions about the Eucharist. The following year, 1715, Pfaff published the fragments in a separate edition. The result was a whole volume of 647 pages. 2075 In the preface, the publisher provides additional information about the passages and argues with Maffei regarding his doubts and objections about the Eucharist. The text of the fragments itself is provided with quite extensive notes. These are followed by two dissertations by Pfaff: a) “De oblatione eucharistiae in primitiva ecclesia usitata” (P. 161–349) and b) “De consecratione eucharistiae in primitiva ecclesia usitata” (P. 350–496). The latter are so extensive that they make obvious the author's long preliminary work on them. At the end of the book there is “Liturgia graeca a J. E. Grabio ad normam veterum liturgiarum composita” (P. 497–528) and another work by Pfaff “Dissertatio de praejudicatis opinio nibus in religione dijudicanda fugiendis” (P. 529–647). Pfaff's explanations and polemics with Maffei were, apparently, thorough. However, Maffei was not satisfied with the first, and in 1716 he published a second letter in his journal, which confirms, with some additions, what he had said before. 2076 In response to this letter, Pfaff issues "Dissertatio apologetica de fragmentis Irenaei anecdotis deque oblatione et consecratione veterum eucharistica adversus virum illustrissimum Scipionem Maffeium." (1718), 2077 where, by the way, he says that the fragments of Irenaeus found by him were combined in the manuscript with the works of Ignatius, Justin, Origen and Hippolytus. Maffei no longer responded to this apology. But in 1734, the monk F. M. Leoni, during the Venetian edition of the works of Irenaeus in the form of three letters, repeated, somewhat expanding, his objections, and even more sharply questioned the authenticity of the fragments. 2078 Pfaff did not object to him. In 1749, the catalog of the Turin Library of Pazin (Pasinus) was published. In it, by the way, regarding Pfaff’s discovery, it was said that, despite careful searches, neither fragments of Irenaeus, nor the works of other fathers called Pfaff, were found in the library. 2079 Pfaff responded to this in 1752 with an article in which he argued that the library and manuscripts in Turin in his time were in extremely poor condition, so it is not surprising that now the fragments he published are not there. 2080 With this letter the disputes in the 18th century ended. Thus, even then the authenticity of the fragments was suspected, although there was no thought yet about Pfaff’s forgery. The question of the fragments was raised again only from 1883, the time of the discovery of Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων. The last work has something in common with Pfaff's second fragment. Bryennios, 2081 publisher Διδαχὴ, T. Tsang, 2082 A. Harnack, 2083 F. Loofs, 2084 F. Funk presented articles and notes. 2085 They all showed a lot of scholarship, knowledge of patrolological literature, philological, archaeological information, resourcefulness, thoughts, etc. However, they did not come to one common decision. On the contrary, everyone came up with their own conclusions, different from the others. The contradictory sum of all opinions was very accurately presented by A. Harnack. “There was only one thing everyone agreed on: that the second fragment did not belong to Irenaeus. In resolving other issues, duality prevails: the second fragment belongs to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th centuries; he stands close to Irenaeus; he is Alexandrian (by origin, some say), he is Antiochian (others); the four fragments represent one whole, they originated from different authors; The 1st, 3rd, 4th fragments are taken away from Irenaeus by some, and attributed to him by others; in fact, the third does not raise any doubts (some say), it is extremely doubtful (others object).” 2086 This was the situation until 1900, when a new detailed study by A. Harnack appeared in Texte und Untersuchungen. The latter examined and studied the fragments again. He presents his conclusions on more than 30 pages. We will convey them briefly. A careful analysis of the passages first showed Harnack that they were nothing more than a mosaic of quotations from the New Testament and Greek fragments from Irenaeus. They only contain 1–3 words that are independent. The similarity in this respect necessarily points to one author of them all. But such artificiality at the same time gives some reason to suspect their authenticity. If we compare the content of the passages with the teachings and writings of Irenaeus, there will be a big difference. The Holy Father quotes passages from the New Testament in a completely different way than can be seen in the fragments. The apostolic tradition in the latter seems to be expressed in writing, which is not stated anywhere in the original writings of Irenaeus. In Contra haereses (IV, 18, 5) St. the father mentions invoking only God at the Eucharist; in fragments the Holy Spirit is already called upon. Here the term ἀντίτυπα, which is not found anywhere else in the patristic works, is used to designate the transubstantiated Holy Gifts. Harnack also notes many other, smaller differences between the teachings of Irenaeus and the fragments. 2087 All of them, small and large, are so striking that there is no doubt that St. Under no circumstances can these passages belong to the father. It is impossible, however, to attribute them, argues Harnack, to a representative of the ancient Greek Church in general. There is no teaching about asceticism in them, although there was a reason for this. The polemics in them are conducted, but not against the Gnostics, Manichaeans or Arians, but against the scholastics, school theologians, etc. Even in stylistic and grammatical terms they cannot belong to a natural Greek. 2088 For all these reasons, their origin must be attributed to a later time and to a person of non-Greek origin who did not belong to the Greek Church. Most of all they suit the age of Pfaff. They quote the most commonly used textus receptus of the New Testament in his time. They reveal themselves to be greatly influenced by the way of thinking of the Pietists in the spirit of Spener; with the latter’s teaching about the need for internal rebirth, life change, opposition to Lutheran orthodoxy and school theology. This is especially noticeable in the form of expression of fragments. Unionist tendencies are also reflected here with an inclination towards the practice and teaching of the ancient Church, at least in the doctrine of the Eucharist, etc. Their author treats with some kind of condemnation the liturgical ritual and ceremonies. All these views were shared, as we have already seen, by Pfaff. The fragments, moreover, for him personally served as confirmation of the conclusions of his dissertations on the Eucharist. These data give reason to see their author in the person of Pfaff himself. The historical circumstances of their discovery, taken as a whole, provide confirmation of this assumption. As is known, no one knew about the fragments before Pfaff. This means that the “legend” about them begins only with him. And he himself admits in one of his letters that his main enemy is academic ambition. At the beginning of the 18th century, as we have already shown, the works of Irenaeus were published quite a few times. Interest in them in patrol science has increased. For Pfaff, therefore, there was a reason for counterfeiting, and according to his internal makeup, he was capable of this. As it turned out later, no one except him saw in the Turin library either these fragments, or the large catalog of books that he promised to make public, or the works of other fathers with whom the fragments were allegedly associated. 2089 For all these reasons, A. Harnack comes to the correct conclusion that the fragments subject to our judgment are nothing more than a forgery of Pfaff in order to become famous and together promote pietistic and unionist tendencies. Most authors, even those who, like Tsang, 2090 previously spoke differently, agreed with the conclusions of the German scientist and even consider the issue to be finally resolved. There has been no new research on the fragments since Harnack. Eusebius. Church history. VI, 13.9 (in Schwartz S. 234; Russian Transl. P. 314). Right there. V, 28.5. Above, the historian speaks generally about “the writings of some brethren, written in defense of the truth against the pagans and against the heresies that existed at that time” (in Schwartz S. 215; Russian translation, p. 288). Library. Cod. 121: « Εἰρηναίου ". Harvey (in the edition of the works of Irenaeus) finds close similarities and recognizes the borrowing of the following passages from Contra haereses in the Philosophumena: I, 11,2... Contra haereses VI, 38 Philos.; I, 12,1 VI,38; I,13,1 VI,39; I, 13.2... VI, 39; I,14.1–17.2 VI, 42.44–53; I,23,2... VI, 19...; I,24,1 VII, 28; I,25,1,5 VII, 32; I,26,1... VII, 33...; I,26,3 VII, 37; I,30,1 VI, 53. Harnack considers it possible to speak only, however, about literal excerpts from Contra haereses in the work of Hippolytus and counts five: I,23,2... Contra haereses VI, 19...Philos.;I,24,1 VII,28;I,15, l...VII,32; I,26,1... VII, 33...; I,26,3 VII, 37 (see: Geschichte Litter. I,1. S. 267–268), Wed: Overbeck Fr. Questionum Hippolytearum specimen. Ienae, 1864. P. 70; also notes to the Russian translation of the mentioned work of Hippolytus (Creations of Hippolytus. Issue I. Publication of the Kazan Theological Academy. Kazan, 1899. P. II (approx.), III, V, X-XI, XIII). Cap. V (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 548–549; Russian translation. Kiev Theological Academy. 1912. Part II. P. 94). To be convinced of this, a simple reading of “Against the Valentinians” and the corresponding passages of Contra haereses is sufficient. See, for example, chapters I, VII, XXXIX of Tertullian’s work. Wed. also: Semler (when publishing the works of Tertullian). Dissert. 1, § 12; Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 267; preface to the Russian translation of “Against the Valentinians” of the Kiev Theological Academy (Tertullian’s Works. Part 2.1912. pp. 88–89). Patrum apostolic, opera, editio minor. S. 128; Wed also the epilogue in other manuscripts: “Ταῦτα μετεγράψατο Γάιἐκ τῶν Εἰρηναίου” (συγγραμάτων – ed. minor. S. 127). The Holy Father here conveys information about the Gnostics Marcion and Cerdon, very similar to Irenaeus. The apostles “wrote about heretics... at a time when the most ferocious heretical plagues had not yet appeared in the world - when Marcion of Pontus, whose mentor Cerdon came to Rome under the then ninth bishop of Rome Hyginus, did not arise from Pontus - Marcion, who, having become a follower of Cerdon and increasing his crimes with new ones, began to spew out more shameless and swifter than all other heretics blasphemy against God" (Epist. 74.2; Russian translation of the works of St. Cyprian. Part 1. Kyiv, 1879. P. 303). Compare: Contra haereses. I,17,1–2. Wed: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 267. Jerome, in the preface to the XVIII book of his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah, says that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against Irenaeus “a wonderful book, ridiculing the fable of a thousand years...” (see Russian translation of the works of Blessed Jerome. Part 9. Kyiv, 1883. P. 183). Harnack, however, suggests that perhaps this refers to the work of Dionysius, written against Nepos, which Jerome, having in mind the content, attributed to Irenaeus (cf.: Harnack. Geschichte. 1.1. S. 267). Schwartz S. 156; Russian translation P. 208. Schwartz has S. 55; Russian translation P. 75. See, for example, also: III, 23.3 (in Schwartz S. 90; Russian translation P. 134); III, 28.6 (Schwartz S. 188; Russian translation S. 252). See: V, 7.1 (in Schwartz S. 188; Russian translation p. 252). Compare: Contra haereses. I,21,3 and IV,11,4 “History”; also I, 27, 1 and IV, 11, 2; I,28,1 and IV,29,1; II, 22.5 and III, 23.3; II, 31.2 and V, 7.1; III, 1.1 and V, 8.1 and many more. etc. For more details see: Harnak. Geschichte. I,1. S. 269–270. Compare: I, 23,5 Contra haereses and III, 26,2 “Histories”; I,24,1 and IV,7,4; I,25 and IV, 7,9; III, 3.4 and III, 28.6, etc. Compare: Contra haereses. II, 13.5; III, 39.13, etc. Schwartz S. 161; Russian translation P. 215. Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation pp. 275–276. Church history. V, 20, 2 and V, 20, 4–8 (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation pp. 276–277). Ibid. V, 24.10–11 (Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation P. 283). Ibid. V; 24.12–17 (in Schwartz S.212–213; Russian translation C283–285). Ibid. V, 24.17 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 285). Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286. Cap. XXIX (in the Russian translation of the Moscow Theological Academy of the works of St. Basil the Great. T. III. Sergiev Posad, 1900. P. 290–291). 16th Catechetical speech. Ch. VI (Russian translation of the works of St. Cyril of the Moscow Theological Academy. 1885. P. 277). Russian translation (Moscow Theological Academy) of the works of St. Epiphany. Part I.1863. P. 293. In Epiphanius they occupy sections 9–34 of chapter 31 of Adversus haereses (see: Russian translation, pp. 293–344). Haereses. 31.35 (Russian translation, p. 344). Russian translation Part 2.1864. P. 6. In Epiphanius it occupies sections 1–21 chapters. 34 (Russian translation, pp. 7–51). Haereses. 34.22 (Russian translation, Part 2, p. 51). See, for example, 24.8; 31.35; 32.5–6, etc. For more information about Epiphanius’s dependence on Irenaeus, see: Lipsius. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios; His own. Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte; Har-nack. Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte d. Gnosticismus. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read the full messages of both. Wed. also: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 272–273; Bernoulli S. 132–134. From one, according to Eusebius, work “Περὶ ἐπιστήμης”, for example, Jerome came up with two: “Contra gentes” and “De disciplina”. Ch. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27; Russian translation of the Kiev Theological Academy of the works of St. Jerome. Part 5.1876. P. 309–310). In Bernoulli S. 14; Russian translation P. 296. Comments on 64, 3–5 of the prophet Isaiah (see Russian translation of the works of Blessed Jerome. Part 9.1883. pp. 175–176). See Russian. translation creations of the blessed Jerome. Part 2. 1879. pp. 280–281. See Russian. translation creations of the blessed Jerome. Part 9. Kiev, 1883. P. 183. See Russian. translation creations of the blessed Jerome. Part 2.1879. P. 253. See Mignéy. PG. T. VII (under the works of Irenaeus). Col. 1233–1234 (phragm VII); Russian translation works of St. Irenea (same fragment number). P. 532. At Mignéy's. PG. T. LXXXIII. Col. 340. See, for example: Naeg. Fabul. I,2,4–5,19,25; II, 2; III, 1 (Migne. T. LXXXIII. Col. 345,349,352,369,377,389,401). See for more details: Glubokovsky N.N., prof. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. M., 1890. T. 2. P. 356–359. Comments on Gen. 3.21. Comments on Rev. 4.5. 7. Scholium on the work of Dionysius the Areopagite De divin. nominib. Cap. VI, IX, etc. – For quotes and references to Irenaeus by other fathers, after Maximus the Confessor, see for more details: Garnack. Geschichte d. Litteratur. I,1. S. 274–280. We will note in the future only the more prominent witnesses. Serm. VII. De eleemosyn. – Mignen has PG. T. XCI. Col. 769; see the text of this passage also under the works of Irenaeus and Migné. PG. T. VII. Col. 1231–1233 (No. IV); Russian translation P. 531 (No. IV). Migne. T. XCI (creations of Maxim). Col. 276. See also the 5th fragment in the works of Irenaeus (Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 1331–1332; Russian translation, pp. 531–532). See more about these borrowings from Harnack in Geschichte Litter. I,1. S. 277–279; the text of some fragments is also given in Migne’ I (under the works of Irenaeus). T. VII. Col. 1233–1336; Russian translation pp. 533–534. See more about this: Garnak. Geschichte. 1.1. S. 281, etc. We borrow information about the Latin codes partly from the prefaces and printed editions of the works of Irenaeus that we have; and mainly from the work of Fr. Loofs's "Die Handschriften der lateinischen Uebersetzung des Irenäeus und ihre Kapitelteilung", where all this information is brought together and critically examined; Wed also: Harnack. Geschichte. 1.1. S. 264–266. So says Loofs (S. 8.80); compare: Harnack. S. 265. S. 6.81–83; compare: Harnack. S. 265. It is possible, however, that it owes its origin to northern France. Loofs. S. 10–13; cf.: S. 63–69, etc. Ibid. S. 61–69; compare: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 265. Loofs. S. 84–88; Harnack. Ibid. Wed: Loofs. S. 16–18,68–69. Praefatio - in Mignen's Col. 13–14. Praefatio (yMignéya). Col. 15–16. See: Loofs. S. 13–16,69,75–80. Ibid. S. 18–20, 78; compare: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 265. Ibid.(Loofs). S. 20, 79, etc. Praefatiö De ista quinque librorum Irenaei editione ad lectores. Loofs. S. 7–8,83–84; compare: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 265. When publishing Latini Latinii Viterbiensis Bibliotheca sacra et profana. 1677. See: Loofs. S. 6–7. Loofs. S. 83; compare: Harnack. Op. cit. S. 265. Ibid. S. 6.81; compare: Harnack. Ibid. Wed: Loofs. S. 6.8; cp.: Harnack. Ibid. Analecta sacra.T.II.P. 188. S. 80; compare: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 265–266. See his work cited. Wed. also: Bardenhewer. Geschichte Litteratur. Bd. 1.1902. S. 500. We report this information from Mekerttschian's preface to the first edition of Επίδειξις᾿ a (1907). Compare: Mekerttschian. Preface. S.IV. See: Wieten. Biz. 116–117; Wed also: Conybeare // Expositor. 1907. July. P. 35–44. We had at hand the editions of Erasmus (1526), ​​Feyardence (1639), Grabe (1702), Massuet (1710 and 1734), Min (1857), Stieren (1848–1853), Harvey (1857) and Manucci. We found all of them in the library of the Petrograd Theological Academy. Information about publications that we did not have was gleaned from Zahn's article in RE von Hauck. 3 Aufl. S. 401 and in Bardenhewer'x Geschichte Litt. Bd. 1.1902. S. 504. Wed. Reviewed by Bardengever: Patrologie. 1910. S. 98; Geschichte Litter. 1902. S. 504. Wed: Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. 1.1902. S. 504. Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXV. H. 2: Irenäeus-Gegen die Haeretiker Buch IV and V in armenischer Version, herausgegeben von Erwand Ter-Minassiantz. Leipzig, 1910 See review of this publication by Prof. A. A. Bronzova: Christian Reading. 1901, February and in “Church Gazette” for 1909 No. 11. For scientific works, the second edition (I. Tuzov) presents some inconvenience in the fact that at the top of the pages there are no marks of the book, chapters and departments of Contra haereses (which was in the first edition). To find the right place, you therefore have to first turn to the table of contents and find the page indication there, and this takes quite a lot of time. See his article in Expositor. 1907. July. P. 35–44: Conybeare. The newly recovered treatise of Irenaeus. For the full title of Wiethen’s work, see our preface, under the list of manuals. Wed. review of this publication in the Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 1914. No. 1. Januar-Märtz. S. 117–120. In “Christian Reading” for 1908, prof. N.I. Sagarda posted a note about amendments to the German translation made by the English scientist Conybeare in the article “The newly recovered treatise of Irenaeus” (Expositor. 1907. July. P. 35–44). V, 7.1 (Schwartz S. 188; Russian translation S. 252). At Migne's Col. 709; Russian translation P. 112. At Mignée Col. 973; Russian translation P. 317. At Mignée Col. 1119; Russian translation P. 445. At Mignée Col. 1118; Russian translation P. 443. IV, praef. differs from other places only in that here ἀνά (in the word ἀνατροπὴ) is translated separately. See the Armenian text in Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXV. H. 2. S. 7, 149–150. We owe the Russian translation of the places we need to prof. A. I. Briyaliantov. III, 23, 3 (Schwartz S. 98; Russian translation S. 134); also: V, 5, 9 (in Schwartz. S. 187; Russian translation, p. 250), etc. See, for example, Photius in the “Library”. Cod. 120 or in many places Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus (for more details see: Harnack. Geschichte Litteratur. I, l. S. 277–280). About the Holy Spirit. Ch. XXIX (in Russian translation by the Moscow Theological Academy. Sergiev Posad, 1900. P. 290). 16th Catechetical speech. Ch. VI. See Photius, for example: Library. Cod. 120 or Sacra Parallela (for more details see: Harnack. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 277). Maximus the Confessor in the scholia on the work of Dionysius the Areopagite “On the Names of God.” Ch. 6. Ibid // Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 275. Cramer. Catena in acta apost. P. 31. Theodoret in his anti-heretic work. 1, 5 (for details see: Harnack. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 273–280). De viris illustribus. Cap. XXXV (y Bernoulli S. 27). IV, 41.4 (y Mignéa Col. 1118; Russian translation, p. 443). Contra haereses. IV, praefatio, §2 (y Mignéa Col 973; Russian translation, p. 317). Ibid. Lib. I, praefatio, § 2 (in Migné Col. 441–442; Russian translation, p. 20); cf.: Lib. II, 17.9 (y Mignéa Col. 765; Russian translation, p. 156), etc. Lib. I, praefatio, § 2 (in Migné Col. 441–444; Russian translation, pp. 20–21). Ibid. II, 17.1 (in Migné Col. 761; Russian translation p. 153). Ibid. I, 13,7 (y Mignéa Col. 587–588; Russian translation, p. 60); Wed: 1,6,3. Lib. II, 17.1 (in Migné Col. 761; Russian translation p. 153). Ibid. Lib. I, praefatio, § 2 (in Mignée Col. 441; Russian translation, p. 20). See the same quotes; cf.: Lib. V, praefatiö “I am appointed for the service of words” (“In administratione sermonis positi sumus”, see Mignéya. Col. 1119; Russian translation, p. 445). Lib. I, praefatio, § 3 (y Mignéa Col. 443–446; Russian translation, p. 21); lib. II, 17.1 (in Migné Col. 761; Russian translation p. 153); Lib. III, praefatio (in Mignée Col. 343; Russian translation p. 219); Lib. V, praefatio (in Migné Col. 1119; Russian translation p. 445). § 3 (in Migne’s Col. 443–444; Russian translation, p. 21). Lib. III, praefatiö “misimus tibi libros” (y Mignen’ya Col. 843; Russian translation p. 219); cf.: praefationes IV and V books. In the Latin text: “gratiam”, see: praefatio, § 3 (in Mignen’s Col. 444–446; Russian translation, p. 21). "Παραστήσεις τοῖς μετά σου" (Ibid.). See: eg Lib. 1,31,4: “Adest enim et tibi, et omnibus, qui tecum sunt”; in Russian translation: “It remains for you and your relatives...” (in Mignen’s Col. 706; Russian translation, p. 109). § 3, pages cited. See: praefationes to books I, II, III, IV and V. For Polycrates, see Eusebius in Chapter 24 of Book V of Church History. Pseudo-Dexter Bivarianus considers the addressee of Contra haereses Turibius, who lived under Pope Leo the Great and in 447 argued with the Priscillianists (Dodwell. Dissertatio. IV. pp. 301–303). However, as Dodvel rightly noted (Ibid.), “it is better not to know at all who the addressee is than to agree with fables.” Bivarian's opinion is not based on anything and suffers from surprising anachronisms. Irenaeus, who lived in the 2nd century, could in no case, of course, have had as his addressee a person who lived in the 5th century. At Mignen's Col. 843; Russian translation P. 219. At Mignée Col. 973; Russian translation P. 316. Ibid. Col. 1118; Russian translation P. 443; Wed preface to Book V (in Migné Col. 1119; Russian translation, p. 445). If Geschichte Litter. Bd. I. S. 502. "Μήτε συγγράφειν εἰθισμένοι " (y Mignen Col. 441; Russian translation p. 20). § 99 (German translation S. 52; Russian translation S. 66). Wed. Wieten has footnotes to the translation of “Proof”. It cannot be recognized as the very first in view of III, 7.1 Contra haereses, where a reference is made, although not particularly clear, to some other work of St. father. “If anyone, in accordance with the custom of Paul (the apostle), who, as I have proven in another place and with many examples (ex multis et alibi extendimus), uses permutation of words ..." (y Migne'ya Col 864; Russian translation p. 232). Above this point, nowhere in Contra haereses does Irenaeus speak in detail about the literary techniques of the Ap. Pavel. Obviously, he analyzed them in some work written earlier than the hereseological work. Wed: Harnack. Geschichte Litter, II, l.S.320. Church history. V, 26; cf.: V, 9; V, 20.22–25; Wed also the Easter Chronicle. De viris illustribus. Cap. XXXV: “Floruit (Irenaeus) maxime subCommodo principe” (y Bernoulli S. 27). At Mignée Col. 851; Russian translation P. 223. Neumann. S. 52, Anm. 2; Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 320; Zahn. RE. S. 403. “Do not the believers who are at the royal court (qui in regali aula sunt fideles) use supplies from the property of Caesar (Caesaris) and each of them, according to his ability, deliver to the poor?” (in Migné Col. 1065; Russian translation p. 399). See, for example, the already cited section of Chapter 30. Book IV “Against Heresies”: “We all have either a small or a large property, which we acquired from the “mammon of unrighteousness” (Luke 16:9). For where do we get the houses in which we live, the clothes with which we cover ourselves, the vessels with which we use, and everything else necessary for our daily life, if not from what, being pagans, we acquired out of our own greed or received from pagan parents, relatives, friends who acquired it by untruth? I’m not saying that we gain even now that we have become believers. For who sells and does not want to make a profit from the buyer?..” (y Mignen’ya Col. 1065; Russian translation pp. 398–399). Compare: Harnack, Neumann (cited above page). Neumann, Harnack, Zahn (place indicated). Massuet (Dissert. 2 - in Migné Col. 222–223), and after him Harvey (T. I. Introductio. P. CLVIII; T. II. R. 110) and Ziegler (S. 29, Anm.) put forward a new basis for determining the date of the appearance of Contra haereses, namely: the mention by Irenaeus in III, 21.1 of the translation of the Old Testament of Theodotion (y Migne'ya Col. 946; Russian translation p. 298), which (translation), according to the testimony of Epiphanius (De mensuris et pond. 17–18) and the “Easter Chronicle,” was made in the second year of Commodus, i.e., in 181–182 of the Christian era. However, as Tsan (RE. S. 403) and Lipsius (Dictionary. R. 258) prove, the “Easter Chronicle” has no independent meaning, since it rests entirely on the message of Epiphanius. In the latter’s original, the time of Theodotion’s translation is determined as follows: “Περὶ τὴν τοῦ δευτέρου Κομόδου βασι λείαν” (Zahn. S. 403). The expression is indefinite. It can be understood both as applied to the time of the second Commodus, and to the second year of the reign of the first. Massuet and Harvey want to read: “περὶ τὸ δεύτερον τῆς Κομόδου βασι λείας.” But there are no grounds for such a situation. However, if Epiphanius really understood his expression as desired by these authors, even then it could not have serious meaning. Lipsius proved (Dictionary, pp. 258–259) that there are many errors in Epiphanius’s chronological calculations; therefore the testimony of St. fathers generally cannot be decisive in historical research. In view of these data, we do not accept Irenaeus’ mention of Theodotion as a basis for determining the date we need; although the interpretation of Massuet and Harvey favors our calculation. Lib. V, praefatio (in Migné Col. 1119; Russian translation p. 445). Ibid. II, 17.1 (in Migne’s Col. 761; Russian translation, p. 153). Ibid. III, 3, 3–4. See us for more details about this in Part I: Ch. I. S. 42–45; also: Ch. II. pp. 113–114. § 3 (in Mignée Col. 443–444; Russian translation, p. 21). At Mignée Col. 591–592; Russian translation P. 60. Mommsen. Roman history. Transl. Veselovsky. M., 1880. Book. 5. pp. 186, 245,469. See here about the language in Gaul during the time of Irenaeus in Chapter 3. Part I. About the nationality of Irenaeus and, in particular, about his native language, see in more detail in Chapter 1 of Part I. Geography. In XVII books. Transl. F. Mishchenko. M., 1879. Book. IV, 1.5. P. 181. Compare: Mommsen. Roman history. Book 5. pp. 186,192;Zahn. Geschichted. netestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I. H. 1. S. 44–47. See also in our part I: pp. 152–153. See, for example, Church history. X, 5.1, where Eusebius, in his own words, offers the decrees of the emperors Constantine and Licinius translated from the Latin language (“τὰς ἐκ τῆς Ῥ ωμαίων φωνῆς μεταληφθεί – σας ἑρμηνείας παραθώμεθα "), in which they were originally published, into Greek (in Schwartz S. 388; Russian translation pp. 525–526). “If we spiritually explain (the Revelation of John) as it is written, then we would apparently be in conflict with the opinions of many ancients - the Latins: Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius, and the Greeks - in order to omit others, I will only mention Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.” See: Prologue to the XVIII book of Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah (Russian translation of the works of Blessed Jerome. 4.9. Kiev, 1883. pp. 182–183). Letter to Theodora (Russian translation of the works of Blessed Jerome. Part 2.1879. P. 281). Compare: Massuet (Migne. Dissertat. II. Col. 227–228), Stieren (RE Ersch. S. 369–370), etc. Compare: Stieren (op. p.), Massuet, Dodwell (P. 394–397) and many others. etc. At Migne's Col. 441; Russian translation P. 20. At Migne's Col. 709; Russian translation P. 112; Wed also: Lib. 1,31,4 (Migne Col. 706; Russian translation, p. 109). “Lest it should seem that I avoid proofs from the authentic Scriptures... I will, for the benefit of well-intentioned people, devote a special book to those Scriptures, and for all friends of truth I will present proofs from the divine Scriptures” (II, 35; 4th Mignée Col. 842; Russian translation p. 217). Wed. preface to book III: “In this third book I will present evidence from the Scriptures, so that I will not remain in debt to myself for anything you ask” (y Mignéa Col. 843; Russian translation p. 219). III, 25.7: “I decided to bring in the next book (IV) the words of the Lord (Domini sermones), so that at least some of them (heretics) through the very teaching of Christ can be persuaded to abandon such error and abandon blasphemy against their Creator” (y Mignéa Col. 972; Russian translation p. 316). Wed: Lib. IV, praefatio, § 1 (y Mignéa Col. 973; Russian translation, p. 317). Lib. IV, 41.4: “It is necessary to add to this work in the next book after the sayings of the Lord the teaching of Paul, to examine his view, to explain the apostle, to interpret everything that the heretics... explain differently, and to show the folly of their opinion...” (in Migne’s Col. 1117–1118; Russian translation pp. 442–443). Wed: Lib. V, praefatiö “In the previous four books... I cited all the heretics and expounded their teaching with a refutation of the inventors of wicked opinions... In this fifth (quinto) book... I will try to present evidence from other sayings of the Lord and the apostolic epistles” (in Migné Col. 1119; Russian translation p. 445). See the above quotes; especially the prefaces to Books II, III, IV and V of Contra haereses. Loofs (in his work already cited) draws his conclusions on this very basis about the two main surnames of all existing Latin codes of Irenaeus. We do not consider it necessary to present the teachings of Ptolemy and Mark here in full; We have already given such a presentation in Chapter 3 of Part I. pp. 179–193. In the “Philosophumena” of Hippolytus (VII, 20–27), another, different from Irenaeus, edition of the Basilides system is presented. There is a debate among modern scientists about who more accurately conveyed the teachings of the Gnostic: Irenaeus or Hippolytus, and why there is such a difference between the fathers. V.V. Bolotov considers it possible and presents the experience of combining both messages. In his opinion, Hippolytus sets out the system of Basilides as it came from the pen of the founder. Irenaeus conveys the system of the later Basilidians, when they were already influenced by Valentin (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 204; see in general: P. 198–205). This is where the Ophites got their name (ö φις serpent). In this case, Irenaeus, as we see, diverges from the generally accepted account of the years of the Savior’s stay on earth. For a more detailed analysis of the place about the age of the Savior during suffering (Ch. 22.5), see us in Part I: pp. 48–50 and approx. with Σ 200; ω 800; τ 300; μ 8; ρ 100. This passage is usually referred to by Catholics in support of their doctrine of the primacy of the pope and the infallibility of the teachings of the Roman Church. What really is St. Irenaeus does not give the right to such a statement, see: Sylvester, Archimandrite. The doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries of Christianity. Kyiv, 1872. P. 184–187, note; Nikanor, archimandrite Analysis of the Roman teaching on the visible primacy (of the pope) in the Church. Kazan, 1871.2nd ed. pp. 171–188; Kurganov F.A., prof. Did St. testify? Irenaeus on the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Church? Kazan, 1893; Troitsky Vl. Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. pp. 159–166; Vaguer I. Num s. Irenaeus testatus sit primatum Romani pontificis // Acta Academiae Velehradensis. Pragae Bohemorum, 1913. No. 1. P. 1–22. Analysis III, 3–4, see in Part I: pp. 42–56,114–116. For an analysis of this passage, see our part I: pp. 247–249. For an analysis of references to this presbyter, see us in more detail in Part I: pp. 124–131. Analysis 33.6–8 cm. We have more details above. pp. 242–248. For convenience of presentation, we slightly change the sequence of St. Irenea in the present department. Analysis of V, 30.3, see in Part I: pp. 34–42. For an analysis of references to elders in V, 33.3–4, see us in Part I: pp. 131–132. Prolegomena for its publication. P. XV-XVI. The content of the lost chapters could, in our opinion, be a more detailed presentation of church teaching about the Last Judgment and the subsequent fate of the righteous and sinners. Both of these questions are addressed by Irenaeus in the surviving text “Against Heresies” too briefly and only in passing, while the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the Antichrist and the earthly kingdom of Christ is given a lot of space in the fifth book. De adversus haereses fontibus. P. 40–43. See: Contra haereses. II, 2.2; V, 3, etc. Contra haereses. I, 11,4 (in Migné Col. 567–568; Russian translation, p. 54); cf.: II, 4.4, etc. For a more detailed index of the passages of Holy Scripture found in Contra haereses, see Harvey. T. II. R. 513–523. Texts of the Old Testament of St. Father quotes mainly from the LXX translation. Ropes (The Bibliotheca sacra. 1877. P. 306–307, note 6) contains up to 60 such quotations; eg: Exodus, 16,18; Is. 48.22; Life 1,2; Ps. 33.6; 50 (49), 3; Is. 44, 10; 1 Sam. 18, 21; Deut. 32, 8; Is. 9,.6; 8, 3; Life 4, 7; Jer. 4.22; Dan. 14.3; Number 12.8; Life 6.2; 9.5; 2.16; Jer. 15.9; Is. 57.16; 25.8 and many more etc. Irenaeus quotes the New Testament from the code that underlies the current Beza (D). Roops from one book of Acts counts up to 76 such quotations. Eg. Acts. 1.16; 2.24; 2.37–38; 3.7.12–14.17.21–24.26; 4.8–9.20.22. 24; 5.31; 10.5; 10.37.41; 15.8.10.13.15.18.20.26.29; 16.10; 17.25–29.31; 20.28.30. Wed. also: 2,26.33.36.38; 3,7.19.25.26; 4.33; 7.60; 10.28; 10.47; 15.7.28; 17.24.27 and others (see: Ropes. R. 328–333). (Roops also examines in detail Harvey’s opinion that Irenaeus, when writing Contra haereses, used the Syriac translation of Peshito - Bibllotheca sacra. P. 308–327; for our presentation of the conclusions of the American scientist, see Part I: pp. 27–28.) See, for example, book. III, ch. 22, which sets forth the doctrine of the humanity of Christ; Ch. 18 of the same book, where the truth of the incarnation of the Savior is proven; book IV, ch. 1–2, that the Creator of heaven and earth is the true God and Father of Christ; or the last chapters of Book V, where Irenaeus in a literal-sensual sense explains passages from Genesis, the prophet Isaiah and the speech of the Lord (Matthew 26, 27-29), proving that after the overthrow of the Antichrist, the earthly kingdom of Christ will come (for more details, see our examples of this interpretation when presenting the contents of these chapters), etc. Irenaeus follows the allegorical method primarily when interpreting the prophetic passages of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. See, for example: book. IV, ch. 10–11, 20–21, where St. the father proves the unity of the content of the Old and New Testaments, since the same Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in their speeches (Moses, David, etc.), visions (Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Daniel) and actions (Hosea, who married a harlot, and Moses, who took an Ethiopian wife). In a mysterious sense, Irenaeus also explains passages from Jeremiah, Daniel and other prophets concerning the time of the Antichrist (Book V. Ch. 25, 2-3; 26; 29, 2; 30, 2). Many of the Savior’s parables are interpreted in the same way: about the vineyard and the winegrowers; the king who arranged the wedding feast; workers in the vineyard, etc. (Book IV, chapter 36. - For more details, see us when presenting the contents of these chapters and other places Contra haereses.) In Russian theological literature on the question of the method used by St. Irenaeus, there are, as far as we know, two diametrically opposed views. Prof. D.V. Gusev argued that St. my father adhered mainly to the literal meaning of Holy Scripture (Orthodox Interlocutor. 1874. T.P. P. 226, etc.). V. A. Troitsky (Archim. Hilarion), on the contrary, confidently declares that Irenaeus entirely uses the allegorical method, which was also adopted by his opponents - the Gnostics (Gnosticism and the Church in relation to the New Testament. Sergiev Posad, 1911, pp. 23–24). The truth, as we see, is in the middle. Book II. Ch. 27.1–3; II, 28.3. Book III. Ch. 3–4; IV, 26.1–2; IV, 33.8; IV, 20, etc. For example, when he sets out the chronology of the Savior’s life (II, 22.5), he talks about paradise and the resurrection of the dead (V, 5.1), the Antichrist (V, 30.1), and the meaning of the Old and New Testaments (IV, 27–32). V, 33.3–4; V, 36.1–2. About the exiles of St. Irenaeus on “presbyters”, see in more detail in Part I: pp. 124–141. V, 38.4 (in Migné Col. 1214; Russian translation p. 518). V, 28.4 (in Migné Col. 1200–1201; Russian translation, p. 508). III, 3.3 (in Migné Col. 849–850; Russian translation, p. 223). IV, 6.2 (in Migné Col. 987; Russian translation p. 329). III, 3,4 (in Migné Col, 851–852; Russian translation, p. 224). Contra haereses. III, 25.7 (in Migné Col. 970–972; Russian translation, p. 316). Formally speaking, here we can speak, in fact, not of one, but of two sources (cf.: Harnack. Geschichte. I, l.S. 145, etc.). However, the close relationship between them gives us the right to unite them into one group and define them as, generally speaking, oral information collected personally by St. Irenaeus, his personal acquaintance with heretics, personal experience, as opposed to written sources. We continue to use this terminology, although it may not be entirely accurate. The reason for such exclusive attention was as follows. Western European scientists - Lipsius, Harnack and others - working on the issue of Christian Gnosticism, were forced to begin their study with Irenaeus, since early documents - both Gnostic and church - were lost. Meanwhile, it was important for the history of the Church, and interesting for the scientists themselves, to restore historical data dating back to the time before Irenaeus, especially church data. And then, undoubtedly, there existed the now lost “Syntagma against all heresies” of St. Justina. The named researchers came up with an original idea - the intention to restore the content of this “Syntagma”. But how could this be done? The authors took it as an axiom that the “Syntagma” undoubtedly influenced in one way or another the content of the patristic anti-Gnostic works, especially the work closest in time to Justin, i.e. Contra haereses of Irenaeus. And so they began to analyze the latest creation in order to extract from it the parts of the “Syntagma” that were allegedly there. Preface to the first book, § 2 (in Migné Col. 441–442; Russian Transl. p. 20). At Mignée Col. 441–442; Russian translation P. 20. At Migne's Col. 509–510; Russian translation P. 38. Wed: I,4,3; 8.1;9.1–5, etc. Preface to the first book, § 2 (in Migné Col. 441–442; Russian translation p.20). Lipsius agrees with this in his second work. See: Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 61.179, etc. Independence of St. Irenaeus in this case and independence from the early patristic anti-Gnostic works are recognized without hesitation by almost all researchers (cf.: Hllgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte. S. 49, etc.). At Epiphanius. Haereses. XXXIII, § 3; also given in T. VII by Mignéy with the works of St. Irenaeus (Col. 1281–1292). Wed: Harnack. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 145. We do not consider it necessary to provide more detailed quotations here; To be convinced of the truth of our position, a simple reading of these chapters is enough. I, 13, 5: “This they themselves confessed many times” (in Migné Col. 587–588; Russian translation, p. 59). At Mignée Col. 627–628; Russian translation P. 71. . At Mignée Col. 584; Russian translation P. 58. Perhaps this “elder” is also identical with the anonymous person who appears under the epithet “ὀ κρείσσων” in St. Irenaeus in the preface to Book I (§2 - in Migné Col. 440; Russian translation, p. 20) and in III, 17, 4 (in Migné Col. 931–932; Russian translation, p. 286). – See also about him here: Part I. pp. 136–138. See: I, 13, 7; Wed also the preface to Book I, § 2 (in Migne’s Col. 441–442; Russian translation, p. 20), etc. Independence of St. Irenaeus from Justin and in general the independence in the presentation of this section is recognized as undoubted by: A. Harnack (Geschichte. I, 1. S. 145), Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 49). Even Lipsius does not suspect them, and in general we do not know representatives of the opposite opinion. Wed: Bdrdenhewer. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur. Bd. I. S. 244–245. Contra haereses. I, 28, 1 (y Mignéa Col. 690–691; Russian translation, p. 98). IV, 29 (in Schwartz S. 165–166; Russian translation pp. 221–222). I, 28, 1 (in Migné Col. 691; Russian translation, p. 98). Euseb. NOT. V, 13.8 (Schwartz S. 196; Russian translation P. 262). Ibid. V, 13, 1: Rodon, “having written various books, refuted in them, together with others, the heresy of Marcion παρατέτακται α ἵ ρεσιν )” – in Schwartz S. 195; Russian translation P. 260. Hllgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 388) and Bardenhewer (Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litter. Bd. I. S. 261) look at both of these books in the same way. At Migne's Col. 691; Russian translation P. 98. At Mignée Col. 705; Russian translation P. 109. At Mignée Col. 697–698; Russian translation P. 103; compare: 31.2, etc. Wed: 29,2,4; 30.1.3–4.8; 31.1, etc. 31, 2 (in Migné Col. 704; Russian translation p. 108). Independence of St. Irenaeus in this section (excluding partly the Varveliots) from Justin and other fathers is recognized even by Lipsius (Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 52–53.65; Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 38) and Harnack (Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 43; Geschichte Litteratur. 1.1. S. 145), so zealously restoring the lost “Syntagma” of Justin. S. 52, etc. We consider it necessary to say a few words regarding our terminology in presenting and analyzing the foundations of the supporters of Justin’s “Syntagma”. All of them speak, in fact, about the “dependence” of St. on her. Irenaeus when writing these chapters. However, dependence can be understood and expressed differently. You can a) literally, entirely or almost entirely borrow certain sections and expressions without processing them yourself. You can b) borrow material, but present it in an independently processed form. As we will see below, supporters of Justin’s “Syntagma”, converging on the general idea of ​​St.’s dependence on it. Justina, there are somewhat different understandings of this dependence. Lipsy, Heinrici and their like-minded people understand by it, in fact, “borrowing.” They think that St. Irenaeus took chapters 11–12, 22–27 almost entirely from Justin’s “Syntagma” without independently processing them. That this is exactly the case is clear from the very method of their proof. So, as we will see below, they refer to the style and method of presentation of these departments; they talk about the unnatural position of the chapters being analyzed among others; They note that they seem to have their own introduction and conclusion. And sometimes they directly talk about borrowing; for example, when explaining the contradiction between the messages of St. Irenaeus about Hygina or the imaginary difference in the presentation of the teachings of Ptolemy in 12, 1–2 and the first ten chapters. Unlike these scientists, Harnack seems more inclined to understand dependence in the sense of only borrowing material while processing it independently. Taking this difference into account, when presenting the views of Lipsius and others, we use the more precise term “borrowing” instead of the word “dependence.” Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 52. See Mignée Col. 687; Russian translation P. 95. At Mignée Col. 849–850; Russian translation P. 223. Migne has Col.987 (IV, 6, 2) and 1194 (V, 26, 2); Russian translation pp. 329 and 503–504 (cf.: Eusebius. HE. IV, 18.9–10 – in Schwartz S. 155; Russian translation, p. 207). "" - 1st Apology. Chapter 26 (Russian translation of the works of St. Justin (Prototype Preobrazhensky). M., 1892. P. 57). At Migne's Col. 671; Russian translation P. 86. Russian translation Preobrazhensky. C.56.88;Lipslus.S.57; cp.: S.58,Anm. 1. At Mignée Col. 823–824; Russian translation pp. 205–206; Harnack. S. 56, etc. Department of the IÏ "Die von Irenäus benutzte Grundschrift".S. 36–64; also: S. 173–179, etc. Preface to Book I, § 2 (in Migne’s Col. 441–444; Russian translation, p. 20). Compare: Lipsius. Op. cilt. S. 61.179, etc. At Migne's Col. 685; Russian translation P. 94. Zur Quellenkritlk des Epiphanios. S. 60. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 61.63–64. Literarische Centralblatt. 1876. No. 11. See: S. 5–9; Wed also: S. 46–58. Dictionary of Christian Biograph. (Smith and Wace). Vol. III. P. 253–279 (“Irenäus”); Vol. IV. P. 1076–1099 (“Valentinus”). The Encyclopaedia Britanica ("Valentinus"). Vol. XXIV. P. 38; cf.: Ge-schichte Litteratur. I,1. S. 145. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1894. No. 13. S. 340–341. The works of this author are published in the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” (for 1912–1916) under different titles: “The Origin of Gnosticism and Its Development” (1912. July-August, pp. 449–500; November, pp. 388–450); “Gnosticism and the struggle of the Church with it in the 2nd century.” (1912. December. pp. 509–567); "Gnosticism of the 2nd century." (1913. September. pp. 31–92), etc. Wed, eg: 1912. November. pp. 395–400, where the author not only definitely acknowledges Irenaeus’ borrowing of information from Justin, but directly speaks of them as one person, connecting their names with a dash (“Justin-Irenaeus.” See: p. 399). Zur Quellenkritik d. Epiphanios. S. 57–62. Die Quellen d. ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 177–178. Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 46.59. Ketzergeschichte. S. 50, etc. At Mignée Col. 670; Russian translation pp. 85–86. At Mignée Col. 687; Russian translation P. 97. See above for a summary of the contents of Book I: pp. 369–374. For more details see: Kunze. S. 10–13. At Mignée Col. 679–680; Russian translation P. 91. “Quae... transferentes ad characterem suae doctrinae...”, etc. (y Mignéa Col. 824; Russian translation, p. 206). For more details see: Kunze. S. 20–21. At Mignée Col. 679; Russian translation P. 91. At Mignée Col. 689; Russian translation P. 96. See, for example: 24.1–2.4–6; 27.3. 25.4–5 (y Mignéa Col. 683–685; Russian translation, pp. 93–94). 27.4 (in Migné Col. 689; Russian translation, p. 97). See above for our analysis of the sections on the followers of Ptolemy (Ch. 1–10) and Mark (Ch. 13–21). Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 42–43. § 2 (y Mignéa Col. 441–442; Russian translation, p. 20). IV, praef., § 2 (in Mignée Col. 973; Russian translation, p. 316). See: IV, praef., § 2: “Whoever refutes them (Valentinian) as he should, refutes all false teachers, and whoever defeats them defeats all heresy” (in Migné Col. 974; Russian translation p. 316); see also II, 31.1: “With the refutation of the followers of Valentinus, the entire multitude of heretics was overthrown” (in Migné Col. 823] Russian translation, p. 205). Wed. more: II, 13.8; II, 5.3. § 1 (y Migne Col. 973; Russian translation p. 316); Wed: 1,31,3. See above for the text of these quotes (P. 448, note 4). “Let us now look at the inconstancy of these (heresy teachers) opinions, when two or yours do not say the same thing about the same thing, but contradict each other both in the essence of the matter and in the names” (y Migne'ya Col. 559–560; Russian translation p. 52). See in general the contents of chapters 11–12 in connection with the previous and subsequent ones above: P. 368. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 196 and others (see generally S. 191–225; Beilage Ï “Der älteste Gebrauch des Gnostikernamens.” See our summary of the contents of these chapters in connection with the previous and subsequent ones above: P. 368. 11, 1: "καθῶς προειρήκαμεν" (in Migné Col. 561–562; Russian translation p. 52). Ibid.: "ὁμοίως τοῖς ῥ ηθησομένοις ὑφ ᾿ ἡμῶν ψευδωνύμως γνωστικοῖς "(in Migné Col. 563–564; Russian translation p. 52). Ibid.: Col. 561; Russian translation P. 52). Ibid. Col. 447–448; Russian translation P. 22. See our summary of the contents of chapters 11–12 above: P. 368. Ch. 11, 1 (in Migné Col. 559–560; Russian translation, p. 52). Ketzergeschichte. S. 54–55. Ibid. Col. 564; approx. 14. See about the similarity of expressions: Kunze. S. 23; there, and in general on the issue of Hyginus, possible explanations are presented for the difference between I, 27, 1 and III, 3, 1. Harvey believes that the copyist made a mistake in 27, 1, writing instead of the numeral Η ʹ another, similar to it Θ ʹ (see his edition of the works of St. Irenaeus). Zur Quellenkritik des Eplphanios. S. 77. Harnack agrees with this (Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 86) and partly even Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 172–173). St. seems to be hinting at this. Shchetin at the end of chapter 26 of the first Apology, when, having spoken about Simon, Menander and Marcion, he refers readers to his other work, saying: “However, I have an essay written against all former heresies; if you want to have it, I will deliver it to you” (Russian translation, p. 64). Wed: Posnov M. / / Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1912. November. P. 394. Contra haereses. 1,23,2 (in Migné Col. 671; Russian translation p. 87). In Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History,” a passage from Justin’s Apology about Helen is read with the addition of words about Tire (II, 13.4 – in Schwartz S. 55; Russian translation, p. 75). However, we think that in this case he made an addition from Irenaeus, the message of which is not given in full, although it is mentioned right there next to it (Ibid.). Wed: Massuet. Dissertatio prima (in Mignée Col. 119); Duchesne. History of the Ancient Church. T. I. P. 108, approx. etc. That in this case there was no later distortion of Justin himself by copyists, this is evidenced by chapter 23 of book II of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History,” where an excerpt from the Apology is given with an inscription in the indicated form (in Schwartz S. 54; Russian translation p. 74). Hippolytus speaks about this work, attributing it to Simon himself (Refutatio. V, 1.7–18). But, probably, it already appeared among the followers of the heretic, although not as late (the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century), as M. Poste suggests (Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1912. November. pp. 400–402). We do not, however, claim that the source of Justin and Irenaeus could only be this work of the Simonians. It is very likely that the source of Justin and Irenaeus could only be this work of the Simonians. It is very likely that they had other books (cf. Harnack. Geschichte. S. 153). Bardenhewer. Geschichte Litteratur. Bd. I. S. 213. Ch. 47 and 48. St. Justin expresses his attitude towards the Ebionites only with such remarks as: “ὁμιως καὶ τούτους οὐ ἀποδέχομαι” or: “ο ἷ ς οὐ συν τίθεμαι." This is also recognized by Lipsius (Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 60–62) and Harnack (Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 34). Compare: Hilgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte. S. 21–22, and also: Posnov M. The origin of Gnosticism and its development // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1912. T. III. November. P. 438. At Migne's Col. 686–687; Russian translation P. 95; Wed also: III, 21.1; IV, 33, 4, etc. Dialogue. Ch. 36: " καὶ καλούμενο ί εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἤ ... Οὐαλεντιανοί , οἱ δὲ Βασιλείδιανοί , οἱ δὲ Σατορνιλιανοί , καὶ ἅ λλοι ἃ λλω ὀνόματι , ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχηγέτου τῆς γνώμης ἔκαστος ὀνομαζόμενος ". "Τῆς λεγομήνης γνωστικῆς αίρέσεοος τὰς ἀρχάς " (y Migne'ya Col. 559–560; Russian translation p. 52); Wed also 23.4: “Simoniani, a quibus falsi nominis scientia accepit initia” (y Migne’i Col. 673; Russian translation p. 88). Wed: Bardenhewer. Geschichte Litteratur. Bd. I.S. 206, etc. Lipsius (Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 60) puts the time of its writing around 145; Kunze – between 140 and 150 (Op. cit. S. 40, Anm. 1). See above for discrepancies in this paragraph. Preface to Book I “Against Heresies” (in Migné Col. 441–442; Russian translation, p. 20). Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 59–60. I, 25, 4: “Quod scripta eorum dicunt” (in Migné Col. 683; Russian translation p. 93); cf.: 25, 5: “ἐν τοῖς συγγράμασιν αὐτῶν ο ὕ τως ἀναγέγραπται” (in Migné Col. 684–685; Russian translation p. 94). About Marcion - ch. 27.4: “contradicemus, ex ejus scriptis arguentes eum” (y Mignéa Col. 689; Russian translation p. 97). Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 52; compare: Harnack. Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 42–43. Compare: Hilgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte. S. 9. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 52–54. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 54. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 57–58. Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. S. 36–41. Ibid.; cf.: Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. S. 68–69. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. S. 177–178, etc. Irenaeus gives excerpts from this “Syntagma” in IV, b, 2 and V, 6, 2 Contra haereses. We, however, do not consider it possible to identify, as we noted earlier, the present work of Justin with the “Syntagma against all heresies.” See these fragments from the writings of the Gnostics (Basilidas, Epiphanius, Valentinus, Herakleon) in Migne's Col. 1263–1322. Commonitio ad lectores in his 1596 edition of the works of Irenaeus (Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 1340). Dissertations in Irenaeum. P. 396. Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei libros (Migne. T. VII. Col. 231–232). The frequent facts of gross distortion in the present Latin text Contra haereses the meaning of the Greek original clearly speak against it. It would be very strange if it was Irenaeus himself or if his own work was distorted under his leadership (see more about this in the quoted passages of Dodwell, Massuet; and also in Jordan: Das Alter und Herkunft. S. 140–141). See: Jordan. Op. cit. S. 135–136, etc. These are, for example: Harvey (Introduction to the edition of the works of St. Irenaeus. T. I. R. 164); F. Loofs (Die Handschriften d. lateinischen Uebersetzung d. Irenaeus. S. 60); O. Bardengever (Geschichte d. altkirchlichen Litteratur. 1902. S. 500; after Jordan’s work, he inclined to the latter’s opinion, see him: Patrologie. 3 Aufl. 1910. S. 97). Prolegomena to his edition of St. Irenea. P. XIV-XV. Eg: Fabricius Alb. I. Bibliotheca Latina. Hamburg, 1696. P. 55, etc. See/ / Migne.T.VII.Col.231–234. Dissertations in Irenaeum. Dissert. V. P. 390–412. Also in opposition to Macsuet were: Udinus, who believed the time of translation to be in the era of the struggle against the Priscillianists (Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis. Leipzig, 1722. T. I. P. 207); Duysinget Gille(Thesescontroversas... de versione Irenaei latina... Marburgi Gattorum. 1747 - we found an indication of this rare brochure in Jordan - S. 137, Anm. 3); Wed also: Histoire literaere de la France. T.I.P. 1. Paris, 1733. P. 334–336, where the time of translation dates back to the 6th century. Introduction to the Edition of the New Testament (1881). T. II. R. 160. Chronology. Bd. II. 1904. S. 315–320. Harnack believes the time of translation is closer to the 3rd than to the 4th century. (Ibid.). Das Alter und die Herkunft der lateinischen Uebersetzung des Hauptwerkes des Irenaeus // Theologische Studien. Th. Zahn dargebracht. Leipzig, 1908, pp. 133–192. See: Migne. PG.T.VII.Col. 231–233. See: Migne. PG. T. III. Col. 231–233. Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. V (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 548–549). See his edition (Halle, 1769-1776); Wed also: Migne. P.L. T. II. Col. 551 –554, approx. h. etc. We emphasize similar words and expressions. Migne. PL T. II. Col. 550–552. Contra haereses. I,1,1 (y Migne'i Col. 445–448). See also: Jordan. S. 152–154. Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. XXXVII (Migne. PL T. II. Col. 591–592). Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. XXXVI (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 591). See their text (given in its entirety) in Massuet (in Migné, Col. 232–233). In our opinion, these passages are truly characteristic, and we are surprised that Jordan devoted only 9 lines to their analysis in his text (S. 153–154). They deserve more attention. This is how Jordanes expresses himself, comparing the Latin translation of James Billius's Contra haereses with the real Latin text (S. 153). The professor further adds that if the same mass (massenhaft) similarity had been noticed in Tertullian and the Latin translator of Contra haereses, one could say that one of them used the translation of the other (Ibid.). To us such a statement seems strange and capable of undermining Jordan's own conclusions. We also compared Billius's translation with the present one and found about 35% similarity between them, that is, 5% only approximately more than what is noticed when comparing Tertullian with the real Latin translation in the analyzed places. If 35% prove addiction, then why can’t 30% prove it? Not clear. On the contrary, we do not consider the similarities with Contra haereses in either Billius or Tertullian to be “cash-office”. After all, Billius also independently translated (see: Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 1339–1340) the first 18 chapters of Irenaeus’ work. Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. VI (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 549). See: Migne. Col. 447–449 (Greek and Latin texts). Migne. P.L. T. P. Col. 551 (Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. VII). Migne. P.L. T. II. Col. 550 (Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. VII). Advers. Valent. Cap. XXXVII (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 591). Advers. Valent. Cap. X (Col. 557). At Migne's Col. 455–456 (Greek and Latin texts). Tertullian in Advers. Valent. Cap. XX. Col. 574. See: Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 495–496 (Greek and Latin texts). Advers. Valent. Cap. X (Col. 558). Irenaeus at Mignéy in PG. T. VII. Col. 459–460 (Greek and Latin texts). Advers. Valent. Cap. IX (Col. 555–556), Irenaeus in Migne's PG. T. VII. Col. 453–454 (Greek and Latin texts). See Jordan for more details on this. S. 158–160. Massuet has "octavum", according to the Codex Passeratii. In all other manuscripts the reading is what we have given (see y Mignéa Col. 687, note 45). Migne.PG. T. VII. Col. 687–688. See Jordan for more details (Op. cit. S. 165–175). In Ezech.; to ch. XXXVI, 4 (Migne. PL. T. XXV. Col. 355). Contra Julianum (Migne. PL. T. XLIV. Col. 644). Migne. PL.T.XLIV.Col.644. For example, quoting Basil the Great, he says: “Quod etsi reperi interpretation, tamen propter diligentiorem veri fidem verbum e verbo malui transferre de graeco” (Migne. T. XLIV. Cap. 1, 5, 18. Col. 652). Or Chrysostom: “Sed suspicionibus non agamus, et hic vel scriptoris error, vel varietas putetur interpretis. Ego ipsa verba graeca, quae a Ionanne dicta sunt – Διὰ τοῦτο ...quod est latinë Ideo interpretis!!..” (Ibid. 1,6,22. Col. 656). Migne. P.L. T. XLIV. Contra Julianum. Cap. IV, 13. Col. 648; see Jordan for more details. S. 172–173. “Gesta vel scripta beati Irenaei jam diu est, quod sollicite quaesivimus, sed hactenus ex eis inveniri allquid non valuit” (Ad Aetherium episcopum Lugdunensem – Migne. PL. T. LXXVII. Col. 1173–1174). Meaning blessed. Augustine, it is impossible, in any case, to comment on the words of Gregory the Great in the sense of indicating the absence of a Latin translation at all by the beginning of the 7th century. Jordan also holds this opinion (S. 180,192). Dissertations in Irenaeum. P. 405; Wed also: Udinus. Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiques. Leipzig, 1722. T. I. P. 207, who held the same view. Eg. Ex. 33, 20 quoted in the Greek text Contra haereses. I, 19, 1: “οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τον Θεὸν καὶ ζήσεται” (somewhat different from the usual text of the Bible); the Latin translation follows it literally: "Nemo videbit Deum et vivet." Also Matt. 5.18 (“one jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the law until all is fulfilled”) by Irenaeus (I, 3, 2) is freely conveyed; the Latin translator, however, again follows it literally. For more details and other examples, see: Jordan. S. 183–185, Anm. 1. For example, according to the Latin text of the Bible, there is obviously a quotation from Eph. 3,2 in Contra haereses, I,3,1: “For all generations of ages and ages” - stands in Greek; the translator says “centuries of centuries.” Also interesting is the quotation from Titus that occurs twice in Irenaeus. 3.10: “Deny the first and second punishment of a person who is a heretic.” In I,16,3 Contra haereses it is: “et secundurn”; and in III, 3,4 – these two words are no longer there (although the Greek text “Against Heresies”, preserved by Eusebius, has them). Obviously, in the latter case, the translator followed the reading of the Latin pre-Jerome Bible. (Cf.: Jordan. S. 186, Anm.; see him for other examples). See: Zahn. Geschlchte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I.1888. S. 51 and others; See also: Jordan. S. 188, etc. De viris illustribus. Cap. LXXIV: “Sunt autem haec (opera Victorini)... adversum omnes haereses...” (y Bernoulli S. 44). Commonitlo ad lectores de sua quinque librorum Irenaei edltionë "Testantur nonnulli pii et docti viri se graecum exemplar (works of Irenaeus) in Venetiana bibliotheca legisse, alii quoque in Vaticana visum ferunt." At Migne's Col. 236–237 (Dissert. II). S. 288–291 (Der griechische Irenäus und ganze Hegesippus im XVI Jahrhundert). Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. Bd. XI. 1890. S. 155–158. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 265. His views are set forth in Dissertatio in Tertullianum, § 12 (when publishing Tertullian’s works. Halle, 1769–1776. Bd. V) and in some other works. In total, they were conveyed by A. Stiren in the second volume of the publication of the works of St. Irenea. R. 356–360. See: Stieren. T. II. R. 360. Walchius S. F. Commentatio de αὐθεντί ᾳ librorum Irenaei Adversus haereses // Novae commentarlae Societatis Regiae scientarum Gottingens. T. V. Gotting., 1775. See also the text of his article in Stieren (T. II. R. 361–380) and in Migné (T. VII. Col. 381–404). Wed, for example: A. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte d. Preussischen Academie d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin. 1893. Bd. II. S. 939–955); prof. Kurganov (brochure “Did St. Irenaeus testify to the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Church, in particular its high priest?” Kazan, 1893); archim. Nikanor (“Analysis of the Roman teaching on visible primacy in the Church.” Kazan. 2nd ed. pp. 171–188); Vl. Trinity (“About the Church.” pp. 160–166); Ios. Vagner (Acta academiae Velehradensis. 1913. No. 1. P. 1–22) and others. Compare: Pisarev L.I., prof. Essays from the history of Christian doctrine. T. I. pp. 552–650, especially: pp. 607–617. See us about this period of Irenaeus’s life in detail in chapters 1–2 of part I. For more information on the similarity of this creation with Contra haereses, see our section on the time of the appearance of the Latin translation. About the similarity of the works of St. Irenaeus with Clement’s “Stromata,” see Walchius for more details (Stieren. T. II. R. 375–380; Migne. T. VII. Col. 398–404). Bardenhewer. Patrologie. 3 Aufl. 1910. S. 162; cf.: S. 157. Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. V (Migne. PL. T. P. Col. 548–549; Russian translation of the works of Tertullian (Kyiv Theological Academy). 1912. Part II. P. 94). See the text of this testimony also above: P. 330. Church history. VI, 13, 9 (in Schwartz S.234; Russian translation C.314). Right there. V, 28.5 (Schwartz S. 215; Russian translation P. 288). Epist. 74.2. See the text of this passage from Cyprian above: P. 477. Cf. also: Contra haereses. I, 17.1–2. See above: P. 330, approx. 2. Justice requires noting that in the middle of the 18th century, when Zemler wrote, the Philosophumenae had not yet been discovered in their entirety. See us about this in more detail above: pp. 330–338. De viris illustrlbus. Cap. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27; Russian translation of the works of St. Jerome. Part 5.1876. pp. 309–310). Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. V (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 548–549; Russian translation of Tertullian’s works. 1912. Part: P. P. 94). Church history. II, 13.5 (Schwartz S. 55; Russian translation S. 75). De viris illustrlbus. Cap. XXXV (Ibid.). . Church history. V, 7, 1 (Schwartz S. 188; Russian translation S. 252). Sacra Parallela (for more details see: Harnak. Geschichte Litteratur. Bd. I, 1. S. 277–280). Photius. Library. Cod. 121. See above about this: P. 330, approx. 2. See our section on the time of appearance of the Latin translation of “Against Heresies” for more details. See his entire work “Against the Valentinians”; Wed also the preface to the Russian translation (Kyiv Theological Academy) of this treatise. 1912. Part II. P. 88. See us about this in more detail above: pp. 334–335. See prof. for more details about this. N.I. Glubokovsky: Blessed. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. T. 2. M., 1890. pp. 356–359. Preface to Book I “Against Heresies,” § 2 (in Migné Col. 443–444; Russian translation, p. 21). Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286. De viris illustribus. Cap. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27; Russian translation (Kiev Theological Academy) of the works of Blessed Jerome. Part 5. 1876. P. 309). See: Stieren (Encyclopädie Ersch. S. 365, Anm. 47). Dissertation. VI. P. 439–449. Encyclopädie Ersch. Ibid. For more information about this, see our description of editions of the works of St. Irenea. pp. 348–349. Preface. S.IV. For more information about this, see above: P. 345. Biz. 116–117; cf.: Conybeare (Expositor. 1907. July. P. 35–44). Sebeos, an Armenian historian of the 7th century, in his essay “The History of Heraclius” has the following phrase: “Irenaeus from Galilee, a disciple of Polycarp, in the church of Laodicea...”, etc. (Mkrtchyan. Preface. S. IV-V; for an explanation of this expression of Sebeos, see also ours: P. 30, note 6). See about him in Jordan: Armenische Irenäeus-Fragmente. S. 108–160; also in our article: “Armenian fragments of the works of Irenaeus” // Christian Reading. 1915. April. pp. 564–576; dept. imprint pp. 3–15. See fragments 6 and 7 of Jordan (S. 10–13, 121–127); Wed also our article: pp. 566–569; dept. imprint pp. 5–8. Ibid. S. 108.203; Wed our article: P. 564; dept. imprint S. 3. Expositor. 1907. July. P. 44. “And Elizabeth said: My soul magnifies the Lord” (Preface to the German edition of “Proofs.” S. VI). German translation (Ch. 65). S. 37; Russian translation P. 51. In the Latin translation it reads: “One of the 12 prophets, Malachi, predicted this: I have no favor...” (Migné Col. 1023; Russian translation, p. 361); in the Armenian text: “An angel predicted this in the book of 12 prophets...” (Mkrtchyan. Preface. S. VI). In the Latin translation we read here: “Well, the prophet Malachi also says: Did not God alone create us?” (in Migné Col. 1033; Russian translation p. 369). In the Armenian text it says: “The angel also said well among the prophets...” (Mkrtchyan. Preface. S. VI-VII). See preface. S.VI-VII. Wed. Harnack: “Das Magnificat der Elisabeth nebst einigen Bemerkungen zu Luc.” 1 und 2" (Sitzungsberichte d. Preussischen Academie d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin. 1900. XXVII. S.2–3). Dr. Erw. Ter-Minassiantz: “Hat Irenäeus Lc. 1.46 Μαριάμ oder Ἐλισαβέτ gelesen?” (Zeitschrift für neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1906. S. 192). Against the Minassian, see: Contra haereses, III, 10, 2, where (in all codes) it says: “Rejoicing Mary exclaimed, prophesying about the Church: my soul magnifies the Lord” (y Mignéa Col. 873; Russian translation p. 240); Wed also T. Zahn: “Sän-gerin... des Magnificat” (Das Evangelium des Lucas / / Kommentar zum neuen Testament. Bd. III. Leipzig, 1913. S. 750). Wiethen (in contrast to the German text) translates the quotation in § 65 of the “Proofs” as follows: “Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, your King is coming to you, meek, sitting on a donkey, on a colt, the son of a dog ( υιὸς ὑποζυγίου).” Biz. 67. See ours above; Wed also: Viten. Biz. 5. Zeitschrift für neutestament. Wissenschaft, 1906. S. 191; cf.: Viten. Biz. 5. see Harnack.GeschichteLitteratur.I, l.S.285(No.5,15),286(No.16), 274; Wed also: Viten. Biz. 5. Wed. also: Conibear (in the reference article); Viten. Biz. 6; Jordan (Armenische Irenäeus-Fragmente. S. 203–204, Anm. 2). Lüdtke reports (Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1911. S. 541) about P. Awgerean’s attempt to prove that Ἐπίδειξις was translated into Armenian from a Latin text. However, this attempt did not meet with sympathy among scientists (see Lüdtke himself in the index article, as well as Akinian: “lst der apost. Erweis von Irenäeus in Armenische aus dem Lateinischen uebersetzt?” // Handes Amsor. 1911. S. 305–310, where the idea of ​​translating the “Proof” directly from the Greek language is defended). Church history. V, 26 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286). See: Nachwort und Anmerkungen for the edition of “Evidence” (1907). S. 53–54. Compare, for example: Weber (translator of the new edition of Ἐπίδειξις᾿ a in German - see above); James Moffatt (Expository Times. 1908–1909. R. 73); Banks (Same magazine. 1906–1907. Vol. XVIII. P. 256–257); Kunze (Theolog. Literaturblatt. 1907. January. S. 18). Compare: Sagarda N.I., prof. Newly discovered work of Irenaeus. P. 10. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. I.P.II. P. 455; Vol. III. P. 398. Compare: Martyrium. Cap. XX (Editio minor. S. 127). Nachwort. S. 54; cf.: Martyrium. S. 127–128 (Editio minor). “It is necessary for both you and all who care about their own salvation to steadily, firmly and confidently walk in faith, so that, having become careless and unsettled, you do not remain mired in material lusts, or even get lost and lose the right path” (German translation S. 1-2; Russian translation S. 17-18). Wed: Sagarda N.I. Decree. op. P. 11. Wiethen lists all the Marcians known to history more modern than Irenaeus and finds that not one of them can be identified with the addressee of the “Proof” (Biz. 100–101). More suitable than others in time is the heretic Marcian (Μαρκιανός; cf.: Wieten. Biz. 100–101), mentioned in Bishop Serapion’s book on the Gospel of Peter (Euseb. HE. VI, 12, 5–6). But precisely because Serapion calls him a heretic, he cannot be identified with the addressee of the “Proof.” Ch. 99 (German translation S. 52; Russian translation S. 66). Ibid. S. 27; Russian translation P. 43. Contrary to Harnack, who denies (without giving reasons) any significance in determining the time of appearance of the “Proof” for the given place (see his Nachwort to the German edition of the work. S. 55, Anm. 1). see haereses.IV, 30.1 (in Migné Col.1065; Russian translation pp. 398–399); Wed We also have it above: P. 359. Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 102–111. The German translation here reads: “damit das Ewige und Beständige Gott werde und hoch über einem jeden der Gewordenen stehe” (S. 3). In accordance with this, the passage under discussion was translated into Russian: “So that the eternal and unchangeable becomes God, and He stands high above each of the created beings” (Sagarda N.I., Prof. Newly discovered work of Irenaeus. P. 19). Harnack considers this reading incomprehensible; therefore, I made an addition to the text by inserting “in uns” after Beständige. The result was the phrase: “So that the eternal and unchangeable becomes God in us” (Nachwort. S. 56–57). However, it seems to us that such an insertion did not improve matters. We ourselves follow Wieten's Dutch translation (Biz. 12). His reading seems to us more correct and appropriate to the context of the speech. The meaning of the expression being analyzed, in our opinion, is that the Lord, as an eternal and unchangeable Being, always immeasurably surpasses and stands above all created creatures. This position must be remembered by every believer, confessing it, in particular, at baptism. The letters a and b denote, as is usually customary, the first and second half of the chapter. In this case, we follow the translation of Conibear (Expositor. 1907. Vol. IV. P. 36), adopted by Witen (Biz. 13). The German text reads: “Des Leibes Werk ist und die Wesenheit der Emanation verleiht.” According to the latter, this expression was translated into Russian: “Since the Word affirms, that is, is the product of the body and gives the essence of emanation...” (Sagarda N.I., Prof. Newly discovered work of Irenaeus. P. 21; see, however, his bibliographic note in “Christian Reading” for 1908 on Conybeare’s amendments). We follow Wieten's translation (Biz. 14), somewhat different from the German (S. 4) and Russian (S. 21). “Four main Testaments were given to mankind: one under Adam before the flood; another after the flood under Noah; the third is the legislation under Moses; the fourth, which renews man and reduces everything in himself, through the Gospel, lifting and, as if on wings, lifting people into the Kingdom of Heaven” (in Migné Col. 889–890; Russian translation p. 250). Compare: Viten. Biz. 147–152. Irenaeus himself does not directly say that he follows this division. But he pays more attention to the points indicated in Contra haereses, and their history is presented more fully. The remaining facts are conveyed too briefly and, for the most part, only in connection with the main ones. Therefore, we consider it possible to agree with Witen that St. the father in “Proof” actually realized his idea about periods. Since the biblical transmission of Old Testament events by St. Irenaeus does not add anything completely new, original, then we did not consider it necessary to present in detail the content of chapters 9–30 “Proofs”. This reading differs from the generally accepted Jewish text. Interpretation by Irenaeus of Gen. 1.1 was not, however, completely exceptional. Jerome claims that in his time many translated this passage into Latin: “In filio fecit Deus” (Quast. hebr. in libro Genes. Ed. P. de Lagarde. 1868. P. 3). In the same way, Hilary asserts that the Hebrew “bresith” has three meanings: in principio, in capite, in filio (Comment, in Ps. 2; cf. Harnack. Afterword to the German translation of the “Proofs.” S. 60). Wed: Wieten. Biz. 191–203, etc. Newly discovered work of Irenaeus. From 10. See the interpretation of this passage in Conybeare (Expositor. R. 35–44) and the translation of Witen (Biz. 32), which refer the name “finger of God” to the Holy Spirit. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1907. No. 6. S. 174. Theologische Literaturblatt. 1907. No. 3. S. 29. Expositor. 1907. July. P 35–44. The same magazine. 1907. March. P. 247; Wed also: MoffattJ. // Expository Times. 1908–1909. P 73 etc. Prolegomena to his edition of the works of St. Irenea. R. 19. NOT. V, 20, 1 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation p. 275). De viris illustribus. Sar. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27). See our quotations from Eusebius and Jerome in full above: pp. 333, 336. 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). The Armenian text of this passage, borrowed from Aucher's martyrology, is printed from Pitra. Analecta sacra. T. II. P. 200–201 (see also about him: Jordan. Armenische Irenäeus-fragmente. S. 198–199). See: pp. 56–65,116–124,289–306. See the entire passage above: pp. 56–57. Another explanation is also possible: that Florin was not yet a heretic at this time. However, it can hardly be accepted. Contra haereses appeared between 185 and 189; and in 190–191 Florinus was already an ardent Valentinian. It is difficult to allow such a change to occur in him within 4-5 years. See more about this above: P. 303. Lipsius (Diet, of Christ. Biograph. P. 263–264) puts the time of writing Περὶ μοναρχίας around 188–189. Lightfoot first placed him, together with Leimbach (168-177, p. 628-629), in the period earlier than Contra haereses (Contemporary Review, 1875, May, p. 834). But then, under the influence of Lipsia, he abandoned this opinion and in The Apostolic Fathers (Vol. 1. Pars. II. P. 554–555) already writes that this work appeared no earlier than 189. Cf. See also: Dodwell. Dissert. VI. P. 427–430. See excerpt (pages indicated). Compare: Zeitschrift für neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1912. H. 4. S. 306–309. For more details about this, see above in Part I: pp. 291–301. Kastner (Katholik. 1910. P. S. 98–100; Zeitchrift für neutestam. N. 4. S. 138, 149–150), the author of the theory about Florinus-Tertullian, in connection with and to confirm his opinion, expresses among other things the idea that Περὶ μοναρχίας represents from itself, in fact, the IV book of Contra haereses, more precisely, the latter is a small alteration of this work. This assumption, in addition to the inconsistency of Kastner's hypothesis in its entirety, cannot be accepted for such reasons. Eusebius and Jerome (op. p.) consider both works to be different from each other. And the first one, at least, had them in their entirety along with Contra haereses, which is evident throughout the course of speech. That's one thing. In addition, which is very important, in Book IV of Irenaeus’s last work we do not find anything completely similar to the passage in the “Church History” (cf.: Koch. Zeitschrift flir neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1912. Heft 1. S. 75, 82). Then, given this theory, it is completely incomprehensible why Florinus is not mentioned by name in Contra haereses. Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 306, Anm. 1. Cap. 79. However, the text preserved to this day by Philastrius is probably distorted and supplemented from the work of Augustine. De haeresibus. Cap. 66 (Cf.: Bardenhewer. Ceschichte Litteratur. Bd. I. S. 507). See above: pp. 333,336. Church history. V, 20.1 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation p. 275). Church history. V, 20.1 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation p. 275), De viris illustribus. Sar. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27). See about this in more detail above, in Part I: P. 305... Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation pp. 275–276; at Migne's Col. 1225–1226; Russian translation works of St. Irenea. P. 529. At Migne's Col. 1233–1234; Russian translation (also No. VIII). P. 533: “As the ark (of the Covenant) was covered with pure gold inside and outside, so was the body of Christ pure and brilliant, inside, being adorned with the Word, and outside guarded (φρουρούμενον) by the Spirit, so that the radiance of natures would be revealed from both.” T. II. R. 454; Wed also: Pitra. Analecta sacra. T. IV. R. 26, 299. Russian. translation P. 546 (No. XLV): “Just as therefore 70 tongues are signified by number and from dispersion are gathered together through their interpretation, so the ark (Testament) is an image of the body of Christ, pure and immaculate. For just as the ark was covered inside and outside with pure gold, so the body of Christ is pure and brilliant, inside, being adorned with the Word, and outside guarded by the Spirit, so that the radiance of their natures would be revealed from both.” Theodoret (Haer. fabul. 1, 23) also speaks of the work of Irenaeus “Against Valentine” (Κατὰ Βαλεντίνου), the reason for the writing of which was, according to him, the activities of Florinus and Vlast. He means here, however, apparently, not the special work of St. father and not Περὶ ὀγδοάδος, but Contra haereses, the title of which in the same form (κατὰ Βαλεντίνου) is conveyed to him in other places of the work (cf., for example: Haer. fabul. 1.19, etc.; see also: Harnack. Geschichte Litter I, 1. S. 264). Hippolytus of Rome in his “Comments on the book. the prophet Daniel" (IV, 24:3) cites a text similar to the present fragment, without, however, indicating that it was borrowed from Irenaeus. “Having appeared, the Savior from the Virgin brought to earth an ark, that is, His body, inside gilded with pure gold, that is, the Word, and outside - with the Holy Spirit” (Ed. Bonwetsch; Russian translation of the works of St. Hippolytus (Kazan Theological Academy). Issue I. Kazan, 1898. P. 134). What explains this coincidence between Irenaeus and Hippolytus is difficult to decide. Perhaps the second borrowed the above text from the first, keeping silent only about his source. Or both had at hand and used some kind of third labor (cf.: Harnack. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 519–520; Bardengever. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 507). Compare: Preobrazhensky (in translation). P. 545, approx. 64. Kastner (Katholik. 1910. II. S. 98–100; Zeitschrift für neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1912. H. 4. S. 138, 149–150) and in relation to this work, Irenaeus expresses the original assumption that it is nothing other than the first three books of Contra haereses. The grounds for such a statement, however, are even less than for the theory of Περὶ μοναρχίας. Eusebius (V, 20.1) and Jerome (De viris illustrlbus. Sar. XXXV) consider them separate works. And there is no excerpt from Περὶ ὀγδοάδος in Contra haereses. See about Vlast in more detail in Part I: pp. 306–310. Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation P. 275. Ibid. S. 197; Russian translation P. 263. T. II. R. 456 (No. 27); Pitra. Analecta sacra. IV. P. 26,300; Russian translation P. 546 (No. XLVII). For its full text, see below, in the “Letters to Various Bishops” section. Wed: Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 507–508; Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 263; Zahn. RE. 3 Aufl. S. 404–405. In Schwartz S.212–213; Russian translation P.283–285;y Migne'ya Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation works of St. Irenea. pp. 530–531. See the text above. pp. 270–271. See in general about the Easter disputes here: pp. 207–220,269–288. Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 283–308; Thl. VI. S. 32–38; RE. 3 Aufl. S. 405. At Harvey's. T. II. R. 457. No. 28. German text from Zahn (Forschungen. Ibid.); Russian translation P. 547 (No. 48). See also our analysis above: pp. 60–62. Geschichte. II, I.S. 321. Forschungen. Th. IV. S. 283–284, Anm.; Th. VI. S. 32, Anm. 1. De viris illustribus. Cap. XXXV (y Bernoulli S. 27; Russian translation of the works of St. Jerome. Part 5. Kyiv, 1875. P. 310). Eusebius. V, 24, 18: “On the occasion of the (Easter) dispute that took place then, he (Irenaeus) had correspondence not only with Victor, but also with various, very many primates of the Churches” (in Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation p. 286). Bardengever notes that Maximus the Confessor, citing an excerpt (independently from Eusebius) from the letter to Victor (in Migné and in the Russian translation No. IV; see our text below), provides it with the note: “ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Βίκτωρα ἐπιστολῆς "(Capita theologica, sermo 7; Migne. PG. T. XCI. Col. 769). This, according to the named scientist, apparently indicates that Rev. Maxim was not aware of Irenaeus’s other letters to Victor (Bardenhewer. Geschichte. S. 509). We do not agree, however, with this conclusion. Maxim may have been familiar with several letters from Irenaeus to Victor, but he quoted an excerpt from only one, which he noted in the inscription of the passage. In any case, based on the latter (inscription), it cannot be argued that Irenaeus sent only one message to Victor. (Bardengever, however, does not make such a conclusion. On the contrary, contrary to Zahn, he quite confidently asserts that Irenaeus wrote to Victor twice: a) on the issue of Easter and b) regarding Florin. See: Geschichte. S. 508–509.) Wed. in general: V, 23–24; especially V, 23, 3 (Schwartz S. 210; Russian translation S. 281). V, 24.9 (Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation P. 283). ^ Wed. in general ch. 23–24 of Book V of his Ecclesiastical History. See our history of the Easter disputes of this period in more detail above. pp. 282–285. Migne. T. VII. No. IV (Col. 1231–1232); Russian translation (No. IV). P. 531: “When someone can do good to others and does not do it, he will be recognized as alien to the love of God.” See Harvey's text. T. II. R. 457 (No. 28). The best translation is given by Zahn in Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 283–308; Thl. VI. S. 32–33; Russian translation P. 547 (No. 48). For an analysis of this passage, see above: pp. 60–62. See here: pp. 60–62,305–306. Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation S: 285. T. II. R. 456 (No. XXVII); Russian translation P. 546 (No. XLVII). “Then, in truth, common joy will be accomplished for all who believe in life, and the mystery of resurrection and the hope of incorruption, and the beginning of the eternal kingdom, when the Lord will destroy death and the devil, will be established in every person. For this man with flesh, raised from the dead, will no longer die, but after it had changed into incorruption and become like spirit, when the heavens were opened, (our Lord) full of glory presented it (the flesh) to the Father.” (This is the entire passage, see the indicated pages in Harvey's Russian translation.) Zahn (RE. S. 405) and Bardenhewer (Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 509–510) think so; Mannucci (P. 21, prolegomena), Harvey (T. II. P. 456) and after them Preobrazhensky (in the Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 516, note 71) refer it to the treatise Περὶ σχίσματος. We have already said, however, that this opinion is untenable. Migné has fragment VII (Col. 1233–1234); Russian translation (same number). P. 532. “Not bending the knees on the (day) of the Lord is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we, by the grace of Christ, were freed from sins and from the death He killed. This custom began in Apostolic times, as Blessed Irenaeus, martyr and bishop of Lyons, says in his discussion of Easter, in which he also mentions Pentecost, on which we also do not kneel, for it is equal to the Day of the Lord (Easter) for the reason already said about it.” Tsan (RE. S. 405) attributes this reference to the letter of Irenaeus to Victor. See the text of this passage below (when we talk about the “Book of Faith”). Jordan (Armenische Irenäeus-fragmente. S. 203) this title refers exclusively to the later Armenian tradition. According to the testimony of Mai (Mai. Spicileg. Roman. T. III. P. 704), such an inscription exists, however (cf. also: Harnak. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 287), and in the Arabic translation of the fragment, independent of the Armenian text (as proved by Jordan. Op. cit. S. 76–83). Counting fragments according to Migné. In Russian translation No. X, XII, XXXIII. At Schwartz's. 214; Russian translation P. 286. De vlris Illustribus. Cap. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27; Russian translation of the works of St. Jerome. Part 5. Kiev, 1879. P. 309). Historia ecclesiastica. V, 29. Compare: Dodwell. Dissert. VI. P. 435–437. Col. 1243–1244; Russian translation No. XXIV. P. 539. “Know that every person is either empty or full. For if he does not have the Holy Spirit, then he does not have knowledge of the Creator, has not received life - Jesus Christ, does not know the Heavenly Father; if he does not live in accordance with reason, according to the heavenly law, then he is not sane and does not act in truth: he is empty. If he has accepted God, Who says: “I will live and walk among them, and will be God to them” (Lev. 26:12), he is not empty, but full.” Wed: Euseb. V, 20.6; Harnak. Geschichte. I,1. S. 263; Bardengever. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 510. Col. 1233–1234; Russian translation (same numbers). P. 533. In the first (No. IX) it says: “By always blessing the worthy and never slandering the unworthy, thus we will achieve the glory and Kingdom of God.” In the second (No. XI) we read: “The duty of a Christian is nothing else than to think about death.” See: Migne. Ibid., approx. 43. Compare: Harnak. Geschichte. I,1. S. 263; Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 510. Pitra. Spicilegium Solesmense. 1852. T. I. P. 305–308; Harvey. T. II. R. 464–469. During the Russian publication of the works of St. Irenea. P. 548, approx. 76. Geschichte. I, l.S.263,287. Dictionary of Christ. Biogr. P. 265. Armenische Irenäeus-fragmente. Leipzig, 1913. According to Jordan's German translation: “Und dass er (Christus) ist der Schöpfer des Alls, bekennen auf andere Weise, wenn auch mit bösem Benehmen die Arianen zusammen aus gemeinsamer Ueberzeugungund nach dem Bekennt-nis aller...” (S. 184–185). At Migne's Col. 906; Russian translation P. 263. Church history. V, 8,9: “(Irenaeus) speaks (in Contra haereses) of Justin Martyr and Ignatius and gives evidence from their writings. It promises to refute Marcion from his own books with a special creation” (in Schwartz S. 191; Russian translation p. 255). Migne.Col. 1235–1236 (No. XIII); Harvey. T. II. R. 482–483; Russian translation (No. XIII). P. 534. “Since the Hellenes, having captured the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used violence in order to find out from them something secret about Christians, then these slaves, not knowing what to say to please the violent, except what they heard from their masters, namely, that the divine communion is the body and blood of Christ, and themselves, imagining that it is actually flesh and blood, gave such an answer to their torturers. They (the Hellenes), accepting that this was really being done by Christians, convinced other Hellenes and through torture forced Saint and Blandina to admit it. And Blandina boldly answered them with the words: how can people allow this, who for the sake of a pious deed do not even eat permitted meat? See his edition of the works of St. Irenea; Wed See also: Harvey. Ibid. In Schwartz S. 173–174; Russian translation pp. 229–231. See our transfer of the contents of this chapter above: pp. 232–234. Migne. PG. T. XCL. Col. 276; with the works of Irenaeus in Mignén. T. VII. Col. 1231–1232 (No. V); Russian translation (same number). pp. 531–532. “The will and active power of God is the creative and providential cause of every time, place and age, and of every nature. Will is the reason (λόγος) inherent in us of the rational soul (νοερ ᾶ ς), as its autocratic power. Will is the mind (νοῦς) striving and rational striving, directed towards what is desired.” Printed in Greek by Pitra. Analecta sacra. T.I.R. 202. "Ἐκ τῶν ... λόγων, ο ὗ ἡ ἀρχή Ζητῶν τὸν θεὸν ἄκουε τοῦ Δαυίδ λέγοντος ". See its Latin text in Migné (under the works of Irenaeus). Col. 1231–1232 (No. VI); Russian translation (No. VI). P. 532. “Since God is immeasurable, world-building and omnipotent, then He, by immeasurable, world-building and omnipotent will and new action, powerfully and effectively brought about the fact that the entire fullness of existence - both invisible and visible - came into being, whereas before it did not exist. And He contains every thing in this way and brings it to its own end, for the sake of which it was produced, without any transformation into anything other than what it was before by nature. For such is the property of God’s action that it not only extends to the infinity of reason or exceeds (our) mind, understanding and word, time and place, and every age, but also surpasses essence, completeness, or perfection.” Feyardentius stated that this fragment was delivered to him by N. Fabre (see: Massuet - in Migné. T. VII. Col. 212); however, he did not indicate where Fabre took it from. Some scholars suggest that Fabre used the Greek Paris Codex No. 854 (Harnack. Geschichte. 1.1. S. 283), others (Zahn Th. RE. 2 Aufl. Bd. IX. S. 200) think that the excerpt was found in Latin. It is therefore possible that there is a complete Latin translation of Περὶ πίστεως. In publications (Minya and others), fragments from Maxim and the real Latin are usually printed side by side. This, apparently, gave rise to some scientists to attribute the Latin passage to Maximus the Confessor (see; Preobrazhensky, when publishing the Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, P. 532, note 6; cf. also: Harnac. Geschichte. I, l.S. 263). See the complete texts, translations of all editions of this fragment and a very complete study of them in Jordan. Armenische Irenäeus-fragmente, S. 3–5,8–10,56–60,65–99. In Syriac, the fragment has survived in three editions. One of them (near Jordan No. 3) bears the title: “Melitona of the Bishop On Faith.” Kruger (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie. Bd. 31.1888. S. 434^448) and Zahn (RE. 3 Aufl. S. 405) considered it to be part of the original work of Meliton. However, Jordan (at first holding the same view - cf.: Archiv für latein. Lexicographie. 1902. S. 59) has recently proven (Op. cit. S. 83) the fallacy of such a point of view, recognizing the present edition as one of the variations of the undoubtedly Irenaean fragment. In Armenian, this fragment is preserved in three manuscripts: a) containing the works of Timothy Elur, b) in the “Seal of Faith” and c) the Venetian Codex (see its publication, translation and study in Jordan. S. 3–5,8–10,56–60,67–99,120–131 (Nos. 2 and 5)). We make this addition according to Jordan (Tsan does not mention the Ethiopian edition), who cites the texts and gives a translation of the fragment also from Arabic and Ethiopian (S. 69–76 et seq.). Russian translation of this fragment (from English by Harvey. T. II. R. 462–463. No. XXXI) by Archpriest. Preobrazhensky when publishing the works of St. Irenea. P. 548 (No. L): “The law and the prophets and the evangelists proclaimed about Christ that He was born of a Virgin and that He suffered on the tree; that He came from the dead and ascended into heaven and is glorified by the Father and is King forever, and that He is the perfect Mind, the Word of God, begotten before the light; He, together with Him, is the Creator of the universe, the Educator of man. He is all in all: in the patriarchs - the patriarch, in the laws - the law, among the priests - the high priest, among the kings - the ruler, among the prophets - the prophet, among the angels - the angel, among people - the man, in the Father - the Son, in God - God, King forever. He sailed with Noah (in the ark) and guided Abraham, was associated with Isaac and traveled with Jacob; He is the shepherd of those who are being saved and the bridegroom of the Church, chief of the cherubim, prince of the angelic powers, God from God, Son from the Father, Jesus Christ, King forever and ever. Amen". Analecta sacra. T. IV. P. 34 (No. VII). Op. cit. S. 24, 164–165. The entire fragment (translated from German) contains the following: “Their (heretics) morals (or opinions) are different from God and they do not know His Only Begotten Word, Which is always united with humanity and mixed (vermlscht) with His creation.” Wed: Harnack. Geschichte. 1.1. S. 283–288, etc. Church history. V, 26 (in Schwartz and S. 214; Russian translation, p. 286). The last fragment is also available in Armenian, Arabic and Ethiopian (see the study of it in Jordan: Op. cit. S. 99–107. No. 3). All these passages do not represent anything special in content. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to provide the text in full. Those interested are referred to the Russian translation of Rev. Preobrazhensky, to the editions of Min, Harvey and others. We have already spoken about some of the fragments (for example, No. VIII, XXIV, XLI, XLV - the account according to the Russian translation) above (their text is also given there - see the sections “On the Octagon” and “On Knowledge”). T. II. R. 455 (No. XXVI); Russian translation (No. XLVI). P. 546. “So, by means of what was already produced, the Word gave an explanation. We are convinced that in each of us there exist (so to speak) two people: one, as we know, is something hidden, the other - open; one is physical, the other is spiritual; however, the birth of both is similar to the birth of twins. For both appear to the world as one, because the soul is not before the body in its essence, nor the body in its formation before the soul, but both occur simultaneously; their food consists of cleanliness and fragrance.” Wed: Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 511; Zahn. RE. 3 Aufl. S. 406; Mannucci. Prolegomena. P. 22. Martin et Durand. Voyage litéraire de deux réligieux Benedictins. T. II. P. 260. Compare: Harnak. Geschichte. I,1. S. 264. De viris illustribus. Cap. IX (y Bernoulli S. 14). Compare: Bernoulli. S. 171–173; Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 510. “In this state of affairs, and when this number (666) is in the best lists of Revelation ... then I do not know how some distort ...” (V, 30.1 - y Mignéa Col. 1203; Russian translation p. 510). “I, however, do not dare to affirmatively declare this (Titan) for the name of the Antichrist, knowing that if it were necessary at this time to openly proclaim his name, it would be declared by the very one who saw the Revelation. For the Revelation was not long before our time, but almost in our century, towards the end of the reign of Domitian” (V, 30, 3 - in Migné Col. 1205-1207; Russian translation p. 512). Schwartz S. 190; Russian translation P. 254. Wed: Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 5104)11. Compare: Harnak. Geschichte. Bd. I,1. S. 264. Sakkellion. Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθήκη. 1890. P. 65; cf.: Harnak. Ibid Analecta sacra. T. II. P. 205; Wed See also: Harvey. T. II. R. 350. In Mignéy No. ХХХ1Х (Col.1247–1248), Harvey (T. II. R. 496 – No. 32). In a more complete form, Piträ Analecta sacra. T. II. R. 203 (No. 3). Russian translation P. 541 (No XXXI). “Since some, I don’t know for what reason, take away half of God’s creative power, claiming that He is the culprit only of the quality of matter, and that matter itself is not created, then, we ask, what is unchangeable. This means that matter is unchangeable; If matter is unchangeable, and the unchangeable does not undergo change in relation to quality, then the world cannot be created from it. Therefore, it turns out to be unnecessary for them for God to give qualities to matter, since matter does not allow any change, being not created in itself. Further, if matter is not created, then it exists with some quality, and, moreover, unchangeable, so that it can neither receive more qualities, nor constitute substances for the formation of the world; and if the world was not created from it, then this completely removes God from creating the world.” Wed: Tsang. RE. 3 Aufl. S. 406. See: Philosophumena. X, 32; Lines 13–15 on the statue of Hippolytus. Wed. See also: Harnak. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 264; Bardengever. Geschlchte. Bd. I. S. 511; Tsang. RE. 3 Aufl. S. 406; see the life of Hippolytus in the preface to the first edition of the Russian translation of his works. Kazan, 1898. P. XXXVIII-XXXIX. Harnack. Geschichte. Bd. I,1. S. 264. Wed: Harnack. Ibid.; Bardenhewer. Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 511. See Jordan for more details about this discovery: Armenische Irenäeus-fragmente. S. III, 108–120; also in our article “Armenian fragments of the works of Irenaeus” (Christian Reading. 1915. April. P. 564–565; separate reprint. P. 3–4). In Jordan No. 10 – S. 14–19 (Armenian text), S. 134–150 (German translation and analysis of the fragment). See also in our article: pp. 570–573 (separate reprint, pp. 9–12). Compare: Contra haereses. I,17; III, 11, etc.; for more details see: Jordan. Op. cit. S. 141–150. Wed: Jordan. Op. cit. S. 149. Wed: Jordan. Op. cit. S. 148–149. Church history. V, 26 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286). See us about the “Book of Miscellaneous Sermons” above. See more about this fragment (No. 11) in Jordan: Op. cit. S. 19–22 (Armenian text), S. 150–160 (German translation and research). Wed. also our article on Armenian fragments (Christian Reading. 1915. April. pp. 573–575; separate reprint. pp. 12–14). For more details, see Jordan. Op. cit. S. 154–159. Jordan expresses this assumption more decisively than in relation to the sixth (No. 10 in Jordan) fragment from the “Seal of Faith” (cf.: Op. cit. S. 159). " The beginning of this fragment as a separate passage with minor changes in the text is given in a letter from the abbot of the monastery Gregory Tuteordi to the Armenian Catholicos Gregory Tghaj (1173–1193). “Irenaeus, successor of the apostles, against Kolorvas, who said that Christ grieved and prayed out of powerlessness and fear. Before whom, did he (Irenaeus) say, did the Mighty and the Creator fear? The holy apostles testified from the Scriptures that Christ crucified is the Son of God. And those who divide and dismember are subject to the punishment of Rehoboam” (see the Armenian text and the German translation in Jordan. Armenische Ireriäeus-fragmente. S. 210–211; phragm. No. 31). According to Jordan (Ibid.), Tuteordi borrowed this passage from the Seal of Faith. Another passage from Tuteordi (in Jordan’s edition No. 32. S. 212–213) about the inseparable union of two natures in Christ was probably taken from the fragment “Tales against Colorvas.” Its text has already been corrected, however, in the Monophysite spirit (see Jordan, indicated pages for more details). See the title and text of this fragment in Jordan. Or. cit. (No. 9). S. 13–14 (Armenian text), 131–132 (German translation). With some minor changes (cf. Jordan. Op. cit. S. 136–137). See more about this: Jordan. S. 132–133. Op. cit. S. 134. Wed. our article in Christian Reading for 1915 April. P. 570 (separate reprint, p. 9). In Mignéy they are numbered XXXVII-XL; in Russian translation – Nos. XXXIV-XXXVH. Their text translated into Russian is as follows (account according to Pfaff). No. 1. “True knowledge consists in the understanding of Christ, which Paul calls the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery, which “the natural man does not receive” (1 Cor. 2:14), - in the doctrine of the cross. If anyone tastes it, he will not turn to the rantings and arguments of the proud and arrogant, who take on what they have not seen. For truth does not lend itself to abstract concepts, and “the word is close to you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Rom. 10:8; Deut. 30:14), as the same apostle says, being available to those who obey. For this makes us like Christ if we know “the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). This is the essence of the apostolic teaching and the most holy faith, betrayed to us, which is accepted by ordinary people and known by those who know little, who do not engage in endless genealogies, but are more concerned about correcting their lives, so that, having lost the Holy Spirit, they do not lose the Kingdom of Heaven. For the first thing is to deny yourself and follow Christ; and those who do this strive for perfection, fulfilling all the will of their Teacher, becoming through spiritual rebirth sons of God and partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, which those who hunger first of all will not be deprived of.” No. 2. “Those who are familiar with the second orders of the apostles (ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι) know that the Lord in the New Testament established a new offering, according to (with the words) prophet Malachi. For “from the east of the sun to the west My name has become famous among the nations, and in every place incense and pure sacrifice are offered to My name” (Mal. 1:11); as John in Revelation says: “incense is the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). And the Apostle Paul exhorts us to “present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, as our reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). And again: “Shall we offer sacrifices of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips”? (Heb. 13:15). These offerings are not according to the Law, the handwriting of which the Lord, having dissolved, destroyed, but according to the spirit, for “we must worship God in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Therefore, the offering of the Eucharist is not carnal, but spiritual and pure throughout. For we offer God the bread and the cup of blessing, thanking Him for commanding the earth to produce these fruits for our food; and then, having made the offering, we call on the Holy Spirit to show this sacrifice - the bread of the Body of Christ and the cup of the Blood of Christ, so that, having accepted these instead of images (ἀντιτύπων), they would receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Those who make these offerings in remembrance of the Lord do not follow the Jewish teachings, but, performing the service spiritually, will be called sons of wisdom.” No. 3. “The apostles established that we should not judge anyone for food or drink, or any holiday or new moon, or Sabbath (Col. 2:16). Where do these divisions come from, where do these splits come from? We celebrate, but in the leaven of malice and wickedness, tearing apart the Church of God, and we observe external things in order to reject the best - faith and love. We have heard from the words of the prophets that such holidays and fasts are displeasing to God.” No. 4. “Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, appeared in the fulfillment of time, so that he might cleanse us who are under sin with His blood and present us to the Father as sons blameless, if we show ourselves obedient to the leading of the Spirit. And at the end of time He will come to remove all evil and restore everything, so that there will be an end to all uncleanness.” Texte und Untersuchungen. Neue Folge. Bd. V. Heft 3. Leipzig, 1900. We present the biographical information according to Harnack (Op. cit. S. 5–8). This letter was printed (in Latin) by Stieren. T. II. R. 381–384. Pfaff's further biography is briefly as follows. In 1714, he was appointed professor of theology at Tübingen; from 1720 he was chancellor of the university. Died November 19, 1760 The full title of this work by Pfaff is: “S. Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis fragmenta anecdota, quae ex bibliotheca Taurinensi eruit, latina versione notisque donavit, duabus dissertationibus de oblatione et consecratione eucharistiae illustravit, denique liturgia graeca Io. E. Grabii et dissertatione de praejudiciis theologicis auxit Christophorus Matthäus Pfaffius. Hagae comitum sumtibus Heinrici Scheurlerii. Anno 1715". In 1743, the second edition was published (without changes, only with a new title page). The text of the fragments is reprinted in Migné (Col. 1248–1257), Stieren (T. I. P. 847–891), Harvey (T. II. P. 498–506). In the Russian translation, as we have already said, they are placed under Nos. XXXIV-XXXVII (pp. 542–544). In Stieren (T. II), see also all materials and correspondence on this issue in the first half of the 18th century. (R. 381–528). See: Stleren. T. II. R. 393–420. In Stieren (T. II. R. 421–465). See also Stieren (R. 466–523). Nova acta eruditorum anno 1752 publlcata. Lipsiae. P. 443. See also the text of the article: Stieren. T. II. P. 525–528. Forschungen. Th. III. S. 280; RE. 2 Aufl. Bd. VII. S. 134. Geschichte d. altchr. Litt. Bd. I.S. 760. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1894. S. 702; 1897. S. 485–487; Kirchen-geschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. Bd. II. 1899. S. 198–208. Die Pfaff'schen Irenäus-Fragmente. S.5. See for more details: S. 42–43, 50–53 and other places in the cited article. See for more details: S. 47–48, 63–66 of the cited article. See the cited article and conclusions from it for more details (S. 63–66). RE. 3 Aufl. S. 406; cf.: Dufourque (ed. Lecofre). P. 191–192; Bardengever (Geschichte Litter. Bd. I. S. 513; Patrologie. 1910. S. 100–101); Mannucci (P. 23–24); Encyclopaedia Britanica. Vol. XXIX. P. 569. As far as we know, only Achelis was not satisfied with Harnack’s arguments (see: Theolog. Litteraturzeitung. 1901. S. 266–270).