Irenaeus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Irenaeus

An engraving of Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyon, France)
Father of the Church
Born 2nd century
Died 2nd/3rd century
Venerated in Roman Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church
Lutheran Church
Feast 28 June
Saints Portal

Saint Irenaeus (Greek: Ειρηναίος), (b. 2nd century; d. end of 2nd/beginning of 3rd century) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church; both consider him a Father of the Church. He was a notable early Christian apologist. He was also a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. His feast day is 28 June.

His best-known book, Against Heresies (c 180) enumerated heresies and attacked them. Irenaeus wrote that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority--episcopal councils.[1] Irenaeus was the first to propose that all four gospels be accepted as canonical.

Contents

[edit] Biography

Born in the first half of the 2nd century (the exact date is disputed: between the years 115 and 125 according to some, or 130 and 142 according to others), Irenaeus is thought to have been a Greek from Polycarp's hometown of Smyrna in Asia Minor, now İzmir, Turkey. Unlike many of his contemporary Christians, he was raised in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult.

During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor from 161-180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him (in 177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleuterus concerning the heresy Montanism, and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus and became the second Bishop of Lyon.

During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain). Almost all his writings were directed against Gnosticism, an off-shoot from Christianity which was spreading at the expense of what he considered to be Christian orthodoxy. The most famous of these writings is Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). In 190 or 191, he interceded with Pope St. Victor I to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodeciman celebration of Easter.

Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In spite of some isolated and later testimony to that effect, it is not very probable that he ended his career with martyrdom. He was buried under the church of Saint John's in Lyons, which was later renamed St. Irenaeus in his honour; the tomb and his remains were destroyed utterly in 1562 by the Calvinist Huguenots. His feast is celebrated on 28 June in the Latin Church, and on 23 August in the Greek.

[edit] Writings

Irenaeus wrote a number of books, but the most important that survives is the five-volume On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, normally referred to by the Latin title Adversus Haereses ("Against Heresies"). Book I talks about the Valentinian Gnostics and their predecessors, who go as far back as the magician Simon Magus. Book II provides rational proof that Valentinianism contains no merit in terms of its doctrines. Book III shows that these doctrines are false by providing evidence from the Gospels. Book IV consists of Jesus' sayings, and stresses the unity of the Old Testament and the Gospel. The final volume, Book V, focuses on more sayings of Jesus plus the letters of Paul the Apostle.[2]

The purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign praising the pursuit of "gnosis" in Irenaeus' bishopric. Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best-surviving description of Gnosticism. According to some biblical scholars, the findings at Nag Hammadi have shown Irenaeus' description of Gnosticism to be largely inaccurate and polemic in nature.[3][4] Though correct in some details about the belief systems of various groups, Irenaeus's main purpose was to warn Christians against Gnosticism, rather than accurately describe those beliefs. He described Gnostic groups as sexual libertines, for example, when some of their own writings advocated chastity more strongly than did orthodox texts.[5][6]

Irenaeus also wrote The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, an Armenian copy of which was discovered in 1907. This work seems to have been an instruction for recent Christian converts.[7] Various fragments of other works by Irenaeus have been found, and many lost works by him are attested by other ancient writers. These include On the Subject of Knowledge, On the Monarchy, or How God is not the Cause of Evil, On the Ogdoad, an untitled letter to Blastus regarding schism, and others. All these works are attested by Eusebius.[8][9]

[edit] Irenaeus affirms all four gospels

Before Irenaeus, Christians differed as to which gospel they preferred. Christians of Anatolia preferred the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Matthew was the most popular overall.[10] Irenaeus affirmed that all four Gospels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture.[11] Thus Irenaeus provides our earliest witness to the acceptance of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel.[7][12] By accepting all four gospels, the second-century church accepted four distinct works with significantly different theological interpretations of the meaning of Jesus' life and death.[10]

Irenaeus is also our earliest attestation that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle[13], and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul[14]. All four gospels themselves are anonymous.

Irenaeus' works were first published in English in 1885 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection.

[edit] Irenaeus' claimed support for apostolic succession and the primacy of the church of Rome

In his writing against the Gnostics, Irenaeus promoted the importance of apostolicity, and mentioned the church in Rome as an example of an apostolic local church. His comments, however, have been often misinterpreted and taken out of context.

“ Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession.[15] ”
“ Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.[16] ”

These comments have been often mischaracterized as supporting apostolic succession and the primacy of the Roman church. Irenaeus certainly valued the succession of bishops within the churches founded by the Apostles. This succession was important to establish a chain of custody for orthodoxy. The Apostles deposited the body of Christian doctrine in each local church they founded, and entrusted the local bishops they appointed with its preservation and propagation to the next generation of bishops in that community.[17] Each Apostolic local church was therefore an independent witness with a direct link to the Apostles. Its succession of bishops had been charged with preserving the Apostolic Faith, and had faithfully handed it down intact in each generation from the Apostles to Irenaeus' day. Irenaeus' point when refuting the Gnostics was that all of the Apostolic churches had preserved the same traditions and teachings in many independent streams. It was the unanimous agreement between these many independent streams of transmission that proved the orthodox Faith, current in those churches, to be true.[18] Had any error crept in, the agreement would be immediately destroyed.[19] The Gnostics had no such succession, and no agreement amongst themselves.

In his refutation of Gnosticism, Irenaeus used the church in Rome and its succession of bishops as one of many possible examples of the preservation of the Apostolic faith over several generations.

“ 1. "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. [20]

 ”

Far from claiming primacy for the Roman church, Irenaeus used this church as one of many possible illustrations because it was "universally known," being situated in the capitol of the Roman Empire. He could have made precisely the same case from any of the churches founded by the Apostles. But such an argument would be less effective because other churches might not have been as well known. Likewise, to tally up the succession from the Apostles of all the bishops in each of the local churches would be too "tedious" for Irenaeus' purposes.

The apostolic succession Irenaeus promoted for the bishops of the Christian churches was limited strictly to the oversight of the local church, and the responsibility to faithfully transmit only what had been handed down to them without alteration or embellishment of any kind. The authority was not contained within the bishops themselves, or even one local church, but within the body of Apostolic teaching. In Irenaeus' day, the authority for the catholic Faith came from the unified testimony of all of the current bishops in all of the Apostolic churches. In other words, the many independent streams of orthodox teaching, deposited in the many independent Apostolic churches, converged into a harmoneous whole in Irenaeus' day. And this united testimony was ample proof that the second century catholic Faith was indeed Apostolic. Since there was uniformity of doctrine among all of the Apostolic churches in Irenaeus' day, [21] all he needed to do was trace the unbroken succession of bishops from one church back to the Apostles of Christ in order to prove credibility for all of the local churches. No such proofs could be offered by any of the Gnostic sects. The "preeminent authority" (derived from a successive chain of custody from the Apostles) that Irenaeus demonstrated for the church in Rome was therefore seen to be independently established for each of the local churches that also had a direct connection to the Apostles, and had preserved the same Christian tradition by the same process of faithful transmission.

Irenaeus in no sense indicated that the Roman church was "preeminent" over the rest of the local churches. Had than been the case, it would have completely destroyed the credibility of his argument against the Gnostics. If Rome imposed its authority over the other churches, and they submitted to Rome, the unified doctrine of all of Christendom would be on that basis, rather than the unified testimony of many independent witnesses. The unity of the catholic Faith was the core of Irenaeus' argument. Yet, that unity carries no weight when Rome is preeminent among the other Apostolic churches. The unity of orthodoxy in Irenaeus' day would be attributed to the influence of Rome, not the faithful transmission of tradition in a multitude of independent streams.

[edit] Irenaeus' theology and Contrast with Gnosticism

The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine "Aeons", and their distinction between the utterly transcendent "High God" and the inferior "Demiurge" who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle[13]. (John had used Logos terminology in the Gospel of John and the letter of 1 John). Irenaeus prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the "hands of God".

His emphasis on the unity of God is reflected in his corresponding emphasis on the unity of salvation history. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that God began the world and has been overseeing it ever since this creative act; everything that has happened is part of his plan for humanity. The essence of this plan is a process of maturation: Irenaeus believes that humanity was created immature, and God intended his creatures to take a long time to grow into or assume the divine likeness. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as children. Their Fall was thus not a full-blown rebellion but rather a childish spat, a desire to grow up before their time and have everything with immediacy.

Everything that has happened since has therefore been planned by God to help humanity overcome this initial mishap and achieve spiritual maturity. The world has been intentionally designed by God as a difficult place, where human beings are forced to make moral decisions, as only in this way can they mature as moral agents. Irenaeus likens death to the big fish that swallowed Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale's belly that Jonah could turn to God and act according to the divine will. Similarly, death and suffering appear as evils, but without them we could never come to know God.

According to Irenaeus, the high point in salvation history is the advent of Jesus. Irenaeus believed that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a savior. He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did: thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.[22] This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. Irenaeus argues that Christ did not die until he was older than conventionally portrayed (see above).

Irenaeus conceives of our salvation as essentially coming about through the incarnation of God as a man. He characterises the penalty for sin as death and corruption. God, however, is immortal and incorruptible, and simply by becoming united to human nature in Christ he conveys those qualities to us: they spread, as it were, like a benign infection. Irenaeus therefore understands the atonement of Christ as happening through his incarnation rather than his crucifixion, although the latter event is an integral part of the former.

By comparison, according to the Gnostic view of Salvation, creation was perfect to begin with; it did not need time to grow and mature. For the Valentinians, the material world is the result of the loss of perfection which resulted from Sophia's desire to understand the Forefather. Therefore, one is ultimately redeemed, through secret knowledge, to enter the pleroma of which the Achamoth originally fell.

According to the Valentinian Gnostics, there are three classes of human beings. They are the material, who cannot attain salvation; the psychic, who are strengthened by works and faith (they are part of the church); and the spiritual, who cannot decay or be harmed by material actions.[23] Essentially, ordinary humans--those who have faith but do not possess the special knowledge--will not attain salvation. Spirituals, on the other hand--those who obtain this great gift--are the only class that will eventually attain salvation.

In his article entitled "The Demiurge," J.P. Arendzen sums up the Valentinian view of the salvation of man. He writes, "The first, or carnal men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, or psychic men, together with the Demiurge as their master, will enter a middle state, neither heaven (pleroma) nor hell (whyle); the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the pleroma divested of body (húle) and soul (psuché)."[24]

Irenaeus is also known as one of the first theologians to use the principle of apostolic succession to refute his opponents.

In his criticism of Gnosticism, Irenaeus made reference to a Gnostic gospel which portrayed Judas in a positive light, as having acted in accordance with Jesus's instructions. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas dates close to the period when Irenaeus lived (late 2nd century), and scholars typically regard this work as one of many Gnostic texts, showing one of many varieties of Gnostic beliefs of the period.[1]

[edit] Prophetic Exegesis

The first four books of Against Heresies constitute a minute analysis and refutation of the Gnostic doctrines. The fifth is a statement of positive belief contrasting the constantly shifting and contradictory Gnostic opinions with the steadfast faith of the church. He appeals to the prophecies to demonstrate the truthfulness of Christianity.

[edit] Rome and Ten Horns

Irenaeus shows the close relationship between the predicted events of Daniel 2 and 7. Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation. Irenaeus climaxes with the destruction of all kingdoms at the Second Advent, when Christ, the prophesied "stone," cut out of the mountain without hands, smites the image after Rome’s division.[25][26]

[edit] Antichrist

Irenaeus identified the Antichrist, another name of the apostate Man of Sin, with Daniel's Little Horn and John's Beast of Revelation 13. He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8. But he is not very clear how "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away" during the "half-week," or three and one-half years of Antichrist's reign.[27][28]

Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of "Dan," in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist's tribe. This surmise became the foundation of a series of subsequent interpretations by others.[29]

[edit] Time, Times and Half a Time

Like the other early church fathers, Irenaeus interpreted the three and one-half "times" of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 as three and one-half literal years. Antichrist's three and a half years of sitting in the temple are placed immediately before the Second Coming of Christ.[30][31]

They are identified as the second half of the "one week" of Daniel 9. Irenaeus says nothing of the seventy weeks; we do not know whether he placed the “one week” at the end of the seventy or whether he had a gap

[edit] 666

Irenaeus is the first of the church fathers to consider the mystic number 666. While Irenaeus did propose some solutions of this numerical riddle, his interpretation was quite reserved. Thus, he cautiously states: "But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, have a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation."[32] Although Irenaeus did speculate upon three names to symbolize this mystical number, namely Euanthas, Teitan and Lateinos, nevertheless he was content to believe that the Antichrist would arise some time in the future after the fall of Rome and then the meaning of the number would be revealed[33]

[edit] Millennium

See also: Millennialism

Irenaeus declares that the Antichrist's future three-and-a-half-year reign, when he sits in the temple at Jerusalem, will be terminated by the second advent, with the resurrection of the just, the destruction for the wicked, and the millennial reign of the righteous. The general resurrection and the judgment follow the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial kingdom.[34][35]

Irenaeus calls those "heretics" who maintain that the saved are immediately glorified in the kingdom to come after death, before their resurrection. He avers that the millennial kingdom and the resurrection are actualities, not allegories, the first resurrection introducing this promised kingdom in which the risen saints are described as ruling over the renewed earth during the millennium, between the two resurrections.[36][37]

Irenaeus held to the old Jewish tradition that the first six days of creation week were typical of the first six thousand years of human history, with Antichrist manifesting himself in the sixth period. And he expected the millennial kingdom to begin with the second coming of Christ to destroy the wicked and inaugurate, for the righteous, the reign of the kingdom of God during the seventh thousand years, the millennial Sabbath, as signified by the Sabbath of creation week.[38][39][40]

In common with many of the fathers, Irenaeus did not distinguish between the new earth re-created in its eternal state--the thousand years of Revelation 20--when the saints are with Christ after His second advent, and the Jewish traditions of the Messianic kingdom. Hence, he applies Biblical and traditional ideas to his descriptions of this earth during the millennium, throughout the closing chapters of Book 5. This conception of the reign of resurrected and translated saints with Christ on this earth during the millennium-popularly known as chiliasm--was the increasingly prevailing belief of this time. Incipient distortions due to the admixture of current traditions, which figure in the extreme forms of chiliasm, caused a reaction against the earlier interpretations of Bible prophecies.[41]

St. Irenaeus was not looking for a Jewish kingdom. He interpreted Israel as the Christian church, the spiritual seed of Abraham.[42]

At times his expressions are highly fanciful. He tells, for instance, of a prodigious fertility of this earth during the millennium, after the resurrection of the righteous, "when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food." In this connection, he attributes to Christ the saying about the vine with ten thousand branches, and the ear of wheat with ten thousand grains, and so forth, which he quotes from Papias.[43]

[edit] Exegesis

Irenaeus’ exegesis does not give complete coverage. On the seals, for example, he merely alludes to Christ as the rider on the white horse. He stresses five factors with greater clarity and emphasis than Justin: 1) the literal resurrection of the righteous at the second advent, 2) the millennium bounded by the two resurrections, 3) the Antichrist to come upon the heels of Rome's breakup, 4) the symbolic prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse in their relation to the last times, and 5) the kingdom of God to be established by the second advent.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
  2. ^ Grant, Robert M, "Irenaeus of Lyons," p.6. Routledge 1997.
  3. ^ Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief, Pan Books, 2005. p. 54
  4. ^ Robinson, James M., The Nag Hammadi Library, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990. p. 104.
  5. ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, 1979. p. 90.
  6. ^ Ehrman, Bart D., Lost Christianities, Oxford University Press, 2005. p.121.
  7. ^ a b Glenn Davis, The Development of the Canon of the New Testament: Irenaeus of Lyons
  8. ^ Poncelet, Albert. The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VII, St. Irenaeus, 1910.
  9. ^ Rev. J. Tixeront, D.D. A Handbook of Patrology. Section IV: The Opponents of Heresy in the Second Century, St. Louis, MO, by B. Herder Book Co. 1920.
  10. ^ a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  11. ^ "But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit." Against Heresies 3.11.8
  12. ^ Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 14. Anchor Bible; 1st edition (October 13, 1997). ISBN 978-0385247672.
  13. ^ a b ibid, p. 368
  14. ^ ibid, p. 267
  15. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 26)
  16. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
  17. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 5)
  18. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book V, Chapter 33:8)
  19. ^ Tim Warner, Irenaeus & the Pristine Faith Rule
  20. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 26)
  21. ^ Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 10)
  22. ^ AH 3.18.7; 3.21.9-10; 3.22.3; 5.21.1; see also, Klager, Andrew P. "Retaining and Reclaiming the Divine: Identification and the Recapitulation of Peace in St. Irenaeus of Lyons' Atonement Narrative." Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ, eds. Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007., esp. p. 462 n. 158.
  23. ^ Grant, Robert M., "Irenaeus fo Lyons," p,23. Routledge, 1997.
  24. ^ Arendzen, J.P., "The Demiurge" [cited 2007]. Available from the World Wide Web @ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm.
  25. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 25
  26. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 26
  27. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 28
  28. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 25, sec. 2-4
  29. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 25, sec. 3
  30. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 25, sec. 3-4
  31. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 4
  32. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 2
  33. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 3
  34. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 4
  35. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 35, sec. 1-2
  36. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 31
  37. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 35
  38. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 28, sec. 3
  39. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 4
  40. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 33, sec. 2
  41. ^ Froom, LeRoy, 1950, ‘’’The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers’’’, Review and Herald Publishing Association, p. 250-252
  42. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 32, sec. 2
  43. ^ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 33, sec. 3

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"
Personal tools