2. And the Lord answered Philip, who wanted to see the Father, saying, "How long have I been with you, and you do not know me, Philip?" He who sees Me also sees the Father: how then do you say, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, and from henceforth you know Him, and have seen Him (John 14:7-10). Therefore, to say that those to whom the Lord gave testimony that they both knew and saw the Father in Him, and that the Father is the truth, did not know the truth, is characteristic of people who bear false witness and have alienated themselves from the teaching of Christ. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if they did not know the truth? How did the seventy (Apostles) preach, if they themselves did not know the truth of the preaching beforehand? Or how could Peter not know (the truth), to whom the Lord gave testimony that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Heavenly Father (Matthew 16:17)? And just as Paul (was) an apostle not of man, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father (Gal. 1:1), (so also the rest of the apostles), for the Son brought them to the Father, and the Father revealed the Son to them.
3. And that Paul consented to the demand of those who had summoned him to the Apostles on a matter, and came to them in Jerusalem with Barnabas, not without reason, but that the freedom of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he himself speaks of this in his Epistle to the Galatians: Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. And I walked according to the revelation and communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-2). And again he says: "We yielded for an hour, and submitted, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved among you" (Gal. 2:5). Therefore, if anyone, on the basis of the Acts of the Apostles, carefully examines the time of which it is written that he came to Jerusalem on the above-mentioned matter, he will find that the years indicated by Paul coincide with it. Thus, Paul's indication agrees and seems to be identical with Luke's testimony about the Apostles.
Chapter XIV: Of Luke, Paul's Companion, and of the Peculiarities of the Gospel History, Which Are Known Only through Him
1. And that Luke was Paul's inseparable companion and co-worker in the preaching of the gospel, he himself declares this, not boasting, but being impelled by the truth itself. For, he says, when Barnabas and John, called Mark, separated from Paul and sailed to Cyprus, we came to Troas (Acts 16:8ff.); And when Paul saw in a dream a man from Macedonia, saying, "Come to Macedonia and help us," he said, "we immediately decided to go to Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach good news to them. And then he carefully shows the rest of his journey to Philippi, and how they spoke the first speech: "Sitting down," he says, "we talked with the women who were gathered together" (Acts 16:13), and who believed, and how many. And again he says, "And after the days of unleavened bread we sailed from Philippi, and arrived at Troas, where we tarried seven days" (Acts 20:5, 6). And all the rest of the particulars (of his journey) with Paul he relates in order, with all care indicating the places, cities, and the number of days before they came to Jerusalem, and what happened to Paul there, how he was bound to Rome, the name of the centurion who received him, and the names of the ships, and how they were shipwrecked, and on what island they were saved, how they were received philanthropically, and Paul helped the governor of this island, how from here they sailed to Puteoli and then arrived in Rome, and how long they stayed in Rome (Acts 21:27; 28). Being present at all this, Luke carefully described it in such a way that he could not be convicted of falsehood or arrogance, because all these (details) prove that he was older than all those who now teach otherwise, and knew the truth. That he was not only a companion, but also a co-worker of the Apostles, and especially of Paul, Paul himself declared this in the Epistles, saying: Demas left me and went to Thessalonica, Crescentius to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia, Luke alone with me (2 Tim. 4:10:11), and thus shows that he was always with him and was not separated. And again in the Epistle to the Colossians he says: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you" (Col. 4:14). But if Luke, who always preached with Paul, was called "beloved" by him, preached the gospel with him, and was commissioned by him to deliver the gospel to us, learned nothing else from him, as is evident from his words, how can these men, who were never with Paul, boast that they had been taught the hidden and ineffable mysteries?
2. And that Paul simply taught what he knew, not only those who were with him, but also all those who heard him, this he himself shows. For when the bishops and elders, who had come from Ephesus and other nearby cities, gathered together in Miletus, because he was hastening to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, he testified to them of many things, and spoke of what was to happen to him in Jerusalem, and added, "I know that you will see my face no more; therefore I testify to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. For I have not failed to declare to you all the will of God. Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops to govern the Church of the Lord,[51] which He purchased for Himself with His blood (Acts 20:25-28). Then, pointing to the evil teachers who were to appear, he said: "I know that after my departure grievous wolves will come to you, not sparing the flock. And men will arise from among yourselves, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "I have not failed," he said, "to declare to you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:29, 30). In this way, the Apostles simply and without looking at anyone taught everyone what they had been taught by the Lord. In the same way, Luke, in spite of no one, handed down to us what he had learned from them, as he himself testifies, saying: "As those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning handed down to us" (Luke 1:2).
3. But if anyone removes Luke on the pretext that he did not know the truth, he will clearly reject the Gospel, of which he presents himself as a disciple. For through him we know very many things that are necessary in the Gospel, such as: the birth of John, the story of Zechariah, the coming of the angel to Mary, the proclamation of Elizabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds and the words they spoke, the testimony of Anna and Simeon concerning Christ, the fact that he remained in Jerusalem at the age of twelve, the baptism of John, of the number of years of the Lord when he was baptized, and that it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar; and in his teaching about what was said to the rich: "Woe to you, you rich! for you have received your consolation. And, Woe to you, you who are full, for you will hunger; and those who laugh now, for ye shall weep. Woe unto you; when all men shall speak well of you, for so did your fathers also with false prophets (Luke 6:24-26). Through Luke alone we learned of all such circumstances — of many of the Lord's actions we learned from him, such as the multitude of fish caught by Peter's companions when they cast their nets at the Lord's command (Luke 5), of the woman who suffered for eighteen years and was healed on the Sabbath day (Luke 12), and of the man who was healed by the Lord's command. suffering from water sickness, whom the Lord healed on the Sabbath, and how He defended Himself about healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to covet the first places, and that we should call the poor and weak, who cannot reward us; about a man who knocked at night to borrow loaves of bread and received them out of urgency of his need (Luke 11); about how during His reclining at the Pharisee's, the sinful woman kissed His feet and anointed Him with myrrh, and that in her favor the Lord said to Simon about the two debtors (Luke 7), also about the parable of the rich man who gathered all his harvest, and to whom it was said: "This night they will take your soul from you; but who shall receive what thou hast prepared (Luke 12:20), and of that the richer; who clothed himself in purple and feasted magnificently, and for the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16); about the answer that He gave to His disciples, when they said to Him: "Increase faith in us" (Luke 17:5); about His conversation with Zacchaeus the publican? (Luke 19), about the Pharisee and the publican, who prayed together in the temple (Luke 18), about the ten lepers whom He healed together on the way (Luke 17); about how He commanded the lame and blind to gather for marriage from the streets and alleys (Luke 18), and about the parable of the judge who did not fear God, whom the widow's persistence forced to protect her (Luke 13), and about the fig tree in the vineyard that did not bear fruit. And many other things can be found, which are said only by Luke, and which are used by both Marcion and Valentinus. And in addition to all this, he tells about what (the Lord), after the Resurrection, spoke to His disciples on the way, and how they recognized Him in the breaking of bread (Luke 24).
4. Therefore they (heretics) must necessarily accept all the rest that is said to them (Luke), or must reject this also. For no one who makes sense will allow them to accept some of what Luke said as true, and reject something, as if he did not know the truth. And if Marcion's followers do reject it, then they will have no gospel left; and they, abridged the Gospel of Luke, as I said before,[52] boast that they have the Gospel. The followers of Valentinus must cease their extreme idle talk, for they have borrowed from this (the Gospel) many reasons for their subtle speculations, daring to interpret it badly; that they were well told. And on the other hand, if they are forced to accept the rest (parts of the Gospels), then, delving into the perfect Gospel and the teaching of the Apostles, they must repent in order that they may be saved from perdition.
Chapter XV: A Refutation of Those Who Demean the Apostle Paul
1. We imagine the same against those[53] who do not recognize the Apostle Paul: they must either renounce the other words of the Gospel, which have become known to us through Luke alone, and not use them; or if everyone accepts this, they must necessarily accept the testimony about Paul, when he (Luke) says that the Lord first said to him from heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecute me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest (Acts 22:8; 26:15), and then Ananias said of him: "Go, for he is the vessel which I have chosen, to declare my name among the nations, and kings, and the children of Israel. And I will show him from this time how much he must suffer for My name's sake (Acts 9:15:16). Wherefore those who do not acknowledge him, who was chosen by God to boldly proclaim his name, because he was sent to the aforesaid nations, despise the election of God, and excommunicate themselves from communion with the apostles. For they can neither prove that Paul is not an apostle, when he was chosen to do so, nor can they prove that Luke is a liar, whereas he thoroughly declares the truth to us. Perhaps this is why God did that Luke presented very many Gospel truths, which must be used by all, so that all, following his subsequent testimony about the deeds and teachings of the apostles and having an intact rule of truth, could be saved. Therefore his testimony is true, and the teaching of the Apostles is clear and firm, and conceals nothing, because they did not teach some things in secret, and some things openly.
2. Такие ухищрения свойственны лжеучителям, худым обольстителям и лицемерам, как и поступают последователи Валентина. Эти люди говорят к толпе ради тех, которые принадлежат к Церкви, которых они сами называют кафоликами[54] и церковными, и своими речами увлекают более простых и обольщают их; подделываясь под наш образ речи, дабы их чаще слушали; и потом упрекают нас за то, что тогда как они думают сходно с нами, мы без причины удаляемся от общения с ними, и тогда как они говорят то же самое и содержать то же учение, мы называем их еретиками; и когда посредством своих умствований отвратят кого–либо от веры и сделают их своими беспрекословными слушателями, то излагают им отдельно неизреченное таинство своей Плиромы. Но обманываются все, которые воображают, будто они способны отличить от истины то, что вероподобно на словах. Ибо заблуждение заманчиво и вероподобно и нуждается в прикрасах, а истина без прикрас и потому вверена детям. Если же кто из их слушателей потребует объяснения или возразит им, о том утверждают, что он не способен принять истину и не имеет свыше семени от их Матери, и совершенно ничего не говорят ему, называя его принадлежащим к средним областям, т. е. к существам душевным. А если кто как овечка отдастся им и последует их образу действий и их «искуплению», то он надмевается и думает, что он ни на небе ни на земле, но вошел в самую Плирому, и уже, соединившись с своим ангелом, ходит тщеславно и надменно подобно петуху. Между ними есть, которые говорят, что человеку, приходящему свыше, следует держаться хорошего поведения; потому они стараются казаться важными на вид. Весьма многие, сделавшись презрителями как бы уже совершенные и живя без всякого уважения и с пренебрежением (ко всему), называют самих себя духовными и говорят, что они уже знают место прохлады, которое внутри Плиромы.
3. Но возвратимся к прежнему рассуждению. Когда ясно показано, что бывшие проповедники истины и апостолы свободы никого иного не называли Богом и не именовали Господом, кроме только истинного Бога Отца и иго Слова. господствующего во всем, тогда ясно должно оказаться, что они исповедали Господом Богом Творца неба и земли, Который говорил с Моисеем и дал ему уложение закона, Который называл отцев, и никого другого не знали. Итак, учение и Апостолов и учеников их[55] относительно Бога стало очевидно из их слов.
ПРОТИВ ЕРЕСЕЙ. Книга третья
Гл XVI. Учение Апостолов о Господе нашем Иисусе Христе, Единородном Сыне Божием
1. Некоторые говорят, что Иисус был только сосудом Христа, в который свыше сошел как голубь Христос и, показав неименуемого Отца, вошел в Плирому непостижимым и невидимым образом, — ибо Он не был постигнут не только людьми, но и небесными властями и силами, — и что Иисус был Сын, и Христос — Отец[56], а Отец Христа — Бог; другие говорят, что Он пострадал мнимо, будучи но природе чужд страдания. Валентиниане говорят, что Иисус, который по домостроительству, был тот, который прошел чрез Марию, и на которого сошел с горней области Спаситель, называемый также Христом[57], так как Он имеет имена всех породивших Его, и тому, который по домостроительству, сообщил Свою силу и Свое имя, чтобы чрез него упразднилась смерть, а Отец сделался ведомым чрез Того Спасителя, Который сошел свыше, Которого называют также приятелищем Христа и всей Плиромы, — так они языком исповедуют единого Иисуса Христа, но разделены в мнении; ибо как я уже заметил, таково их обыкновение — говорить, что один был Христос, произведенный Единородным для укрепления Плиромы, другой Спаситель порожденный для прославления Отца, и еще иной — тот, который по домостроительству. и о котором говорят, что он пострадал, тогда как Спаситель, носивший Христа, возвратился в Плирому. Поэтому, я нахожу необходимым привести все учение Апостолов о Господе нашем Иисусе Христе и показать, что они не только ничего такого не думали о Нем, но еще более — что они Святым Духом возвестили, что те, которые будут выдавать такие учения, суть посланники сатаны для ниспровержения веры некоторых и для отвращения их от жизни.