Why, in particular, did the Gnostics become so famous that Christians had nothing to do for their own success but to imitate these famous people, assimilating their principles and ideas? Harnack answers this question at length, and develops it with obvious enthusiasm. And above all, the literary and scientific activity of the Gnostics, which had a theological character, in Harnack's view, deserves every surprise. He writes: "In Gnosticism, the early Christian writing (?) Gospels and Apocalypses, to this kind of works was added the compilation of a certain kind of Acts of the Apostles; In both cases, they, the Gnostics, assigned a large place to the didactic, biographical, and fictional elements. In this kind of literature, as in its other kinds, the Gnostics adapted to secular literature, bringing theological works closer to secular ones in character and properties. But even more important is the fact that scientific and theological Christian literature undoubtedly traces its origin to Gnostic literature. Here, in Gnosticism, the Old Testament found a systematic and partly historical criticism: the Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in Christendom; here treatises on dogmatic-philosophical problems (on the soul, justice, abstinence, etc.) were compiled, and dogmatic systems were worked out; here a selection of the best of ancient Christian literature took place; here were written scholarly commentaries on the holy books (so did Basilides, the followers of Valentinus, Heracleon; there were commentaries on the Gospel of John, on the Epistles of Paul, the latter skillfully interpreted); it was here that the original form of the Gospel was transformed into the Greek form of the sacred novel (?) and biography (meaning the Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the followers of Mark and contained an account of miraculous stories from the time of Jesus' childhood. — A. L.); Psalms, odes and hymns were created here (the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander, the disciple of Valentinov, the poems of Bardesan). All these theological-critical studies, historical researches, and scholarly commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures were first composed in the Christian world by the Gnostics. Moreover, it is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that these works were very similar, were close to scientific works that came out of the philosophical schools of that time. Various Gnostic hymns, odes, liturgical songs, didactic poems, magic books, in their turn, stood in connection with works of the same kind in the secular literature of that time. "If we recall," Harnack concludes his curious arguments, "that later, little by little, all this was sanctioned in the Catholic Church, i.e., philosophy, the science of sacred books (criticism and exegesis), theological schools, sacred formulas, superstitions, all kinds of secular literature, etc., then the thesis that the unsuccessful (?) experiments of rapid Hellenization (in Gnosticism) were followed by a victorious epoch of the slow Hellenization of Christianity" (S. 175-176, p. 191).

In addition to the scientific and theological activity manifested in literature, the Gnostics, in Harnack's opinion, are further remarkable for the fact that they were the first to come to the idea of determining the number of books of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures of the New Testament, to the idea of creating a canon of these books, and realized this idea. Such an undertaking had incalculable and most important consequences for the development of the Church. Here are Harnack's original views on this interesting subject. The Gnostics "wanted to draw Christian teaching precisely from the apostolic tradition, and this tradition could be found only in the apostolic works. Since the Gnostics wanted to stand on the basis of the apostolic tradition, Gnosticism was the first to raise the question of what Christianity was, and had to determine by criticism those sources that would give an answer to the question now indicated. The Gnostics' rejection of the Old Testament made this question necessary and prompted the definition of the New Testament canon. With a high probability, it can be argued that the idea of a canonical collection of Christian scriptures first arose with the Gnostics. The Gnostics considered such a collection really necessary, while all other Christians (i.e., adherents of the Church itself) who recognized the Old Testament as Revelation and interpreted these monuments in the Christian spirit, did not feel any special need for another, new canon of the Scriptures. From the numerous Gnostic commentaries on the New Testament books that have come down to us in fragments, we know that these books enjoyed canonical authority in Gnosticism, whereas in great Christianity (i.e., in the Christian world. — A.L.), nothing is heard about such canonical authority or commentaries on the New Testament around this time. The principle that guided the Gnostics in determining the canon of the sacred books of the New Testament was undoubtedly the principle of the apostolic origin of the books. (This is proved by the fact that the Epistles of the Apostle Paul were accepted into the canon; as apostolic writings, these Epistles had significance in Marcion, Tatian, the followers of Valentinus, and the Perates.) Who was the first to come up with the idea of creating a canon of the New Testament books – whether Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, or several Gnostics at the same time – this question will remain forever obscure (however, history says little in favor of Marcion). If it is proved that Basilides and Valentinus recognized the Gospel writings as a standard, then this already expresses the full idea of the canon. Subsequently, the question of the scope of the canon became the most important subject of dispute between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics: the representatives of Catholicism emphatically asserted that their canon was the most ancient and that the Gnostic collections of sacred books were corrupted revisions of the canon of the Catholic Church. (But they could not have adduced proof of this, says Harnack, as Tertullian's De praescr. — A. L.) Thus, the Gnostics deliberately became supporters of tradition, they were the first to determine in the Christian world the scope, content and method of preserving the (Christian) tradition, in a word, they were the first Christian theologians" (S. 187-188).

In other respects, too, Harnack points to the great theological progress in the Gnostic societies. He finds that the Christian dogmatic teaching of the Gnostics was very advanced in comparison with the catholic Christians of their time and served as a model for the dogmatics of the latter. Let us present a few examples of this kind. Harnack asserts that the doctrine of Christ as the Son of God entered a new stage of development among the Gnostics. He writes: "Gnosis, although he considered a distinction between the supreme God and Christ, from his point of view there was no reason to overemphasize this distinction. For most Gnostics, Christ was in some way a manifestation of the supreme God himself, and consequently popular Gnostic writings (e.g., the Acta Iohannis) speak of Christ in terms that seem to identify Him with God. It is not hesitant to assert that for the majority of Gnostics Christ was πνεϋμα, όμούσιον τφ πατρί. The Gnostics, for example, said of their so-called Sophia that she was "consubstantial" with the supreme God. Undoubtedly, Harnack observes, the Gnostic lofty conception of Christ had a powerful influence on the later development of Christology." The same scholar finds in the Gnostics a developed doctrine of the dual nature in Christ and docetical concepts of the Body of Christ; this teaching, according to Harnack, became the property of the subsequent Church and was reflected partly in the system of Origen (Docetism), partly in the views of Tertullian (the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ). And all this is not enough: Harnack points out other merits of the Gnostics in the revelation of the teaching about Christ. He says: "The absolute significance of the person of Christ in Gnosticism has come to a very clear expression (Christ is not only the Teacher of truth, but the Truth itself), in any case, it has become much clearer than there (meaning: in the Church. — A.L.), where Christ was considered as the subject of the Old Testament Revelation. On the other hand, it is impossible not to recognize, the German scholar argues, that the Gnostics associated salvation with the historical person of Christ: Christ personally accomplished this salvation" (obviously, Harnack does not find such a teaching in the Church of that time). The Gnostics created by their teaching another new dogma regarding Christ. Namely, Harnack believes that "since the Gnostics taught that Christ passed through Mary (i.e., the Mother of God) as through a channel, the later idea of Christ's birth from Mary "without incorruption" of the latter arose from this; in any case, the transition from that doctrine to this one," in Harnack's view, "was very easy." The doctrine of original sin was first clearly revealed, in the opinion of the same scientist, only in Gnosticism. "It is interesting that Basilides," he declares, "depicts original sin as if one were hearing Augustine himself. In general, it is necessary to note how even the most specialized later church terminology, dogmas, etc., are to a certain extent borrowed from the Gnostics." In the sphere of the Christian sacraments, in Harnack's opinion, the Gnostics developed great activity, multiplying their number and changing their original Christian meaning. Chrismation, anointing of the sick — the Gnostics were the first to introduce it; in them, as in no one else, we find a direct teaching about the transubstantiation of wine into Blood, in the Eucharist, and so on (S. 186, 191-193, 196). The concept of the Church as such, i.e., as a single principle in Christianity, according to the German researcher, was clarified by the Gnostics and entered into their very life to such an extent that Catholic Christians could only follow the example of the Gnostics. Harnack declares to the reader: "The Catholic Church remained for a long time in an uncertain position (im Werden), and this lasted until it had attained the firmness (stability) which the Marcionite Church (?) thanks to the activity of one person, who was animated by such a strong faith (?) that he had the strength to oppose his concept of Christianity to all others, as the only correct one. Around the year 160 the Marcionite communities possessed the same firm but free organization, possessed the same canon, the same understanding of the essence of Christianity" (S. 211).

This is the brilliant image of Gnosticism that Harnack draws. There was much in Gnosticism, according to the latter, which cannot be found in the position of the Church before 160, much that placed the Church below Gnosticism.

Gnosticism has appeared, and the face of the Church is being renewed, rapid, striking and promising reforms are taking place in the Church, Harnack assures. What transformations took place in the Catholic Church under the influence of Gnosticism – the researcher speaks about this in great detail, and it seems to us that this aspect of the matter constitutes the very essence of Harnack's work; this, it must be assumed, is what the author had in mind to reveal with particular clarity. The transformation of the Church under the influence of Gnosticism constitutes the last stage of the development of Christianity in the era of the first three centuries. The encounter with Gnosticism prompted the Church to revise all her beliefs, to reorganize her structure, to establish theological science in her midst, etc. But let us give the floor to Harnack himself, who, beginning to describe the last stage of the development of the Church in the epoch of the initial three centuries, counts first of all all the benefits that the Church has gained in the struggle against Gnosticism, in a struggle in which she had not so many victories, How many defeats... The second century of existence (this second century, according to Harnack, begins in 160, but is not a century in the strict sense of the word, since it embraces the time up to 300 A.D.) of the societies of Gentile Christians (it must be said that he considers the so-called Judeo-Christians to be persons without any future in the Church) is marked by a victorious (?) struggle against Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual creation of Church teaching. the ousting of the early Christian enthusiasm, in short: the establishment of a great ecclesiastical union, which, being at one and the same time a political society (of course, in resemblance to a solid state structure), a school and a religious institution, rested on the firm foundation of "apostolic" doctrine, the "apostolic" canon, and, consequently, the apostolic "organization" (the expression "apostolic" with quotation marks in Harnack in this case denotes "supposedly apostolic", considered apostolic); From all this arose and was created a catholic Church, since, according to the judgment of a learned historian, such a Church had not yet existed. We agree that it is somewhat unclear what the historian wants to say with the above high-sounding phrase. But reading this phrase, everyone instinctively feels that some surprises await the reader from the wise scientist. And this is absolutely true. The author's explanation of the above phrase constitutes a series of surprises that no imagination can foresee.

Let us follow Harnack and see what he has to say and show us. What changes took place in the Church in the next phase of its development (from 160 to 300 A.D.), the German historian speaks of this as follows: "Ancient Catholicism (i.e., the Church of the specified time. — A. L.) He never raised the question of what should be considered Christian, since instead of answering this question, he only defined the norms that would guarantee the recognition of the Christian as opposed to the alien to it. This solution to the problem seems, on the one hand, too narrow, and on the other, too broad. It is too narrow, because Christianity, tied to norms, had to endure internal constraints; it was too broad, because it did not at all protect against the invasion of new and alien elements. Catholicism also closed the Gospel, because it clothed it with a protective shell. He preserved the Christian religion from rapid Hellenization, but in doing so, little by little, he sanctioned more and more worldly elements as if they were Christian elements. In the interests of world mission, he did not directly sacrifice the strictness of religion, but greatly softened this strictness by allowing to adhere to a less strict life ideal, and it became possible to be considered Christians and be content with this ideal. Under the influence of catholicism, the Church arose, which was no longer a society of faith, hope and strict discipline, but a political society, which, among other things, had in its midst the Gospel. All the forms used by this worldly society were strongly invested by Catholicism with an apostolic, almost divine, authority, and with this it perverted (entstellt) Christianity, and obscured and hindered the purpose of what is considered Christian. On the other hand, in Catholicism, religion for the first time received systematic dogmatics. In catholic Christianity itself, a formula was found that reconciled faith and knowledge. For centuries mankind has been content with this formula, and the happiness which it created is still in effect to this day, after the formula itself has become a bond. Two kinds of phenomena contributed to the emergence of catholic Christianity.

First, firm external standards for determining what is to be recognized as Christian have been pointed out and established, and these standards have been declared to be the apostolic heritage. The simple baptismal Creed was converted into an "apostolic" rule of faith (regula fidei) and acquired the meaning of an apostolic law of faith; from the church writings read during divine services, the "apostolic" collection of writings (i.e., the canon) was formed and equated with the Old Testament; the episcopal-monarchical structure of the Church (i.e., the primacy of one plenipotentiary bishop in the communities) began to be presented as "apostolic," and the bishops were given the quality of successors to the apostles; Finally, the cult became a mystery service, the origin of which was also attributed to the apostles. As a result of what needs did they come up with the idea of compiling a new (New Testament) canon; To indicate the relationship between the apostolic canon of faith, the apostolic canon of the New Testament, and the apostolic (episcopal) ministry is one of the most important tasks of dogmatic-historical research, which, unfortunately, cannot be fully resolved. Considering the process of this development, we see that Christianity in this case merged more and more with worldly elements. This change in Christianity is most noticeable in the fact that Christian hopes were obscured, that the secularization of Christian life was not only tolerated, but also sanctioned, that the preaching of unconditional devotion to heavenly interests met with distrust or was confined to very narrow limits.

Secondly, it was not enough to build dams and fortifications for external protection against Gnosticism, it was not enough to proclaim, contrary to Gnosticism, what Christians believed in and hoped for, and there arose a desire to imitate Gnosticism, namely, to oppose the enemy with scientific theology. But this enterprise led once more to the secularization of Christianity: Tradition, the rule of faith, was transformed into a system of beliefs in which the data of ancient Christian teaching found their place only partially and more in name. Here Harnack considers it appropriate to quote the following saying of Luther: "When the Word of God fell into the hands of the fathers (of the Church), it was the same thing that happened to milk strained through a coal bag – the milk turns black and spoils." "In the Christian literature of the apologists, which it had already been about the middle of the second century," Harnack reveals his views, "the beginning of that development was laid, which, a century later, in the theology of Origen, i.e., in the attempt to transform the Gospel into an ecclesiastical-scientific system of teachings, reached its conclusion, at least for the time being. From the point of view of content, this system of teachings signifies the legitimization of the transfer of Greek philosophy to the Christian faith. The Hellenization of ecclesiastical Christianity (and we do not mean the Gospel) did not occur gradually; On the contrary, at the very moment when the thinking Greek, having accepted the new religion, began to understand it to himself, Hellenization had already begun. The Christianity of Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius was no less Hellenized than that of Origen; however, there is a significant difference between them (the apologists and Origen). Since the question of what should be considered Christian did not exist at all for the apologists, and they did not pose it, they did not pretend to consider their scientific exposition of Christianity as a real expression of Christianity. Justin and his companions believed beyond all doubt that the faith, which as Tradition lives in the communities, is in itself complete and pure, and does not need scientific processing. The apologists, almost playfully, solved their task of presenting Christianity as perfect and reliable, as the highest knowledge of God and the world, since this knowledge is revealed philosophy. But the problems of Christian Science soon became more difficult to solve. The struggle against Gnosticism prompted us to somehow answer what should be considered Christian, and to put the found answer firmly and clearly. But in truth, Christians were not able to answer this question firmly and definitely. This can be seen in the example of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, more or less dependent on the (Christian) tradition on the one hand, and on philosophy on the other, tried to oppose to the Gnostic conception of Christianity, on the basis of an expanded baptismal Creed, a certain kind of complex of ecclesiastical teachings; at the same time, they undoubtedly had before them the extremely instructive example of the Gnostics and Marcion. But these Church Fathers worked out only individual dogmas, i.e., particular propositions characterizing Christianity, and by no means worked out dogmatics. They still lived in the conviction that Christianity, which filled them and which they considered identical with the Christianity of other – and even uneducated – believers, had no need of scientific processing in order to serve as an expression of higher knowledge. But what Irenaeus and Tertullian did not do, was done by Clement and especially by Origen. The more the Christian Tradition approached the Greek religious philosophy, the more immeasurable was the sum total of the problems that arose from it.

Clement of Alexandria set about solving them, but had to retreat before the enormity of the task. Origen took up the same task under difficult circumstances and in some respects brought it to an end. He wrote the first Christian dogmatics, which rivaled the philosophical systems of the time, and which was a peculiar combination of the apologetic theology of Justin and the Gnostic theology of Valentinus, but Origen did not lose sight of the practical aim. In this dogmatics, the rule of faith was melted down, and this was done consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity in scientific knowledge was for the first time coming to its systematic expression, and that Christianity (whatever its form) without theology was a poor and obscure Christianity in itself. The Hellenization of the doctrine reaches a high degree in Origen. And yet, in spite of all the Hellenism that is noticeable in Clement and Origen, they undeniably came closer to the Gospel than Irenaeus with his attachment to authority. In general, Harnack defines the catholic dogmatics of the third century as "Christianity understood and formulated in the sense of Greek religious philosophy" (S. 243-253).

A more detailed disclosure of the currently mentioned provisions of Harnack:

1) Rules of faith (Symbols), canon and Church.

Even before the Church's heated struggle with Gnosticism, brief formulations of faith appeared in Christian communities. The shortest formulation was that which defined the Christian faith as faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These formulas were used during solemn church actions. These formulas also contained a brief indication of the most important facts in the history of Jesus. We know with certainty that in the Roman Church, a little later than 150 A.D., a firm Symbol of Faith was created, which had to be assimilated by everyone who was baptized. When Gnosticism appeared, support in the struggle against this enemy began to be sought in these Symbols; they were declared "apostolic" Symbols. But in this case, they were used not in their original form, but in a widespread, interpreted form. This is what Irenaeus did in the first place. For the greater success of the struggle against Gnostic speculations, he clearly passed off the interpreted baptismal Creed as the apostolic regula veritatis. He based his proof of the apostolic character of this Creed on the fact that this Creed is the content of the faith of those communities founded by the Apostles, and that these communities have always preserved the apostolic faith unchanged. At the heart of these two theses, Harnack considers it necessary to note, are two unproven assumptions and one substitution. It is not proved that any Creed came from the apostles; nor is it proved that the ecclesiastical communities founded by the apostles invariably preserved their teaching; finally, the Symbol itself in this case is replaced by its interpretation. But on the other hand, the path taken by Irenaeus was the only one by which it was possible to save what was still possessed at that time from the times of primitive Christianity, and therein lies the historical significance of this work. Through the affirmation of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in Irenaeus was applied to the model of the Roman Creed, the most important Gnostic theses were eliminated at one blow and the opposite teaching was firmly established as apostolic. Tertullian fully followed the example of Irenaeus. He had already openly declared that whoever recognized the formula of faith as his own confession was to be considered a Christian brother, he had the right to a fraternal greeting and hospitality from other Christians. In the formulations of faith, the hitherto divided Christian societies now received a kind of "Yeh" that united them, just as philosophical schools in some briefly formulated teachings had a unifying connection of a real and practical character. The "Rules of Faith" became a kind of passport for traveling Christians, served as the basis for the confederation of individual communities, etc. (S. 258-272).

Further. Marcion based his understanding of Christianity on the canon of the new (i.e., New Testament) books, which in his societies seems to have enjoyed the same respect with which the Old Testament was treated in "great Christianity" (i.e., the Church). In the Gnostic schools, which rejected the Old Testament either in whole or in part, the Gospel and Apostolic writings were regarded as sacred texts as early as the middle of the second century and theological speculations were based on them. And in "great Christianity" at the same time there was no collection (canon) of New Testament writings that would be equated with the Old Testament canon. The canonical collection of New Testament writings arose in the Catholic Church later than that of the Gnostics (but not later than 180 A.D.) and in imitation of the latter. Quite suddenly, in Meliton of Sardis, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and in the so-called Muratorian fragment, a canon appears before us. Nothing precise can be said about the origin of this canon in the Church. One thing can be noticed is that the canon first appears where we first encounter the so-called apostolic rules of faith. Nothing is known about the authority of the collectors of the canon. Nevertheless, the canon of Irenaeus and Tertullian is quite complete; heretics are strongly reproached by them for not recognizing this or that book (as the New Testament), while they (Irenaeus and Tertullian) considered their own collection to be the most ancient and valued it as highly as the Old Testament.

books, although the canon was already present in the Church. This enterprise was a forced affair. Marcion and the Gnostics energetically pointed out that everything truly Christian must be based on apostolic preaching, and yet the supposed identity between the general Christian circle of views and apostolic Christianity, in the view of these Gnostics, does not exist, that even the apostles contradicted themselves. As a result of such opposition, the Church was forced to deal with the question posed by her enemies. But in the essence of the matter this task was completely insoluble. And only "unconscious logic" (?), the logic of self-preservation, could show the Church the only way out of the difficulty: namely, to collect the entire apostolic heritage, to declare herself the only legally capable owner of this apostolic heritage, and to equate this heritage in importance with the Old Testament. But the question arose: what exactly are the apostolic writings? The question is difficult. After the middle of the second century, a multitude of works were circulated bearing the name of apostolic, and moreover, there were often different editions of one and the same work. The redactions, which contained a docetic element and exhortations to the crudest asceticism, even reached the liturgical use in the communities. Therefore, it was necessary to decide definitively what was to be considered truly apostolic writings; Which form or redaction should be recognized as apostolic? The Church, i.e., mainly Asia Minor and Roman, which in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus still had a common history, took up this selection; they turned their attention to that circle of Christian writings which were accepted for use in divine services, and among these books they recognized as truly apostolic those writings which were presented as authentic by the tradition of the ancients. At the same time, the rule was adhered to, according to which writings which, although bearing apostolic names, contradicted the general Christian faith, i.e., the rule of faith, or contained something offensive to the Old Testament God and the realm of His creation, were declared false, and all editions of the apostolic writings were equally rejected if they bore similar features. Consequently, the Church held on to such writings that bore the names of the apostles and the content of which did not diverge from the Church faith, i.e., proved it. But all this, according to Harnack, does not yet testify to the fact that the Church did not allow herself any falsity in this. In compiling the canon, Harnack argues, the Church revised the text of the books, and it added beginnings and ends in some of the New Testament writings. But much more important is the fact that the Church attributed many anonymous works by their origin to one or another of the apostles, although the German researcher is inclined to assume the idea that such a forgery could have been made before the time of the compilation of the canon.