Irenaeus and Florinus, Eleutherus and Victor
Irenaeus of Lyons
teaching that he went his own way. I do not mean to suggest that there was already either a clear self-understanding of an Orthodox faith expressed in a creedal statement, or even that this existed simply in an incipient form, waiting for the right time to blossom. 'Orthodoxy' and 'heresy' are defined in reaction to each other and, in so doing, condition each other. As is commonly admitted, 'Orthodoxy' developed into a creedal religion in reaction to various forms of teaching. But Marcion too reacted, not finding his teaching accepted by the broad swathe of Christianity in Rome.
It seems likely that a similar dynamic is at work in the case of Valentinus.
The adoption of a language that differentiates between true believers, the 'pneumatics' who do not simply have a higher or deeper understanding of the common faith but a knowledge that recontextualizes that faith in terms of an overarching theology or mythology, and the simple 'psychics', whose faith is not totally false but inadequate, is already evidence of their own perceived difference from the majority. They had thus already differentiated themselves from the other Christian communities, even if those communities were slow to recognize the fact. The break was not as dramatic as with Marcion, but it was already implicitly there.
One final observation to be made regarding what we have seen is that the claim that 'Orthodoxy', presumed to be monolithic and intolerant, was brought to Rome from the outside needs further nuance. It is certainly the case that the arrival of Polycarp in the city in the mid-150s was a major event, paving the way for his disciple Irenaeus also to intervene in Roman affairs in subsequent decades, as we will see in the next section. But we must not forget that the other notable figures in this story—Cerdo, Marcion,
Valentinus, Justin—were also immigrants in Rome who, with the exception of Justin, who was martyred there, eventually moved on. If the apostle Paul knew of half a dozen communities in Rome in the 50s, there were certainly more before Cerdo arrived in the 130s. In a very real sense, then, figures such as Cerdo, Marcion, and Valentinus were 'alien plants', to use the language of Ignatius,116 who found no abiding place in the city.
IRENAEUS AND FLORINUS, ELEUTHERUS AND VICTOR
When Irenaeus, as a leader of the Christians in Gaul, first steps into Rome, he does so, as we have seen, on a mission of peace, bearing a letter from 116 Ignatius of Antioch, Trall. 6.1.
Irenaeus of Lyons the confessors of Vienne and Lyons commending Irenaeus to Eleutherus of Rome (174/5–89). Given the nature of the other letter composed by the confessors, addressed to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, with its allusions to the Montanist movement, and what we will see later of the actions of Eleutherus' successor Victor (189–98), it seems that Eleutherus was thinking of dissociating himself and his community from the communities in Rome made up of immigrants from Asia and Phrygia, most likely using their enthusiasm for the New Prophecy as the occasion. As nothing more is heard of this incipient clash, we should conclude that Irenaeus was indeed able to effect peace between the communities in Rome.117 Later on Victor was prepared to be in fellowship with the Montanists, and wrote letters to their home churches in Asia and Phrygia.118
This unprecedented proposed action of Eleutherus demonstrates a new confidence of one of the leaders of the communities in Rome, an indication in the development of monepiscopacy that we will see increase under Victor. Another indication of this is the list of the succession of the leaders of the Church in Rome given by Irenaeus in his third book of Against the Heresies. The list consists of twelve names: Linus, Anacletus, Clement,
Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherus (haer. 3.3.3). As Lampe has demonstrated, there are sufficient indications to draw some conclusions regarding the origin of this list and its purpose.119 First, that Irenaeus interrupts the catalogue of names given in the present tense with his own historical and literary comments given in the imperfect enables us to distinguish between the list itself and his redaction of it in the context of his own work. Second, that Eleutherus' position as twelfth is emphasized ('in twelfth place'), and that the sixth bishop is 'Sixtus', indicate that the composition of the catalogue to culminate in the twelfth is intentional: the list is designed to point out
Eleutherus' possession of the fullness of apostolicity. The list does not end with Eleutherus simply because he was in office when Irenaeus was composing the third book of Against the Heresies. The list itself is an instrument justifying Eleutherus' claims to a greater role for his position: he is not simply one among many presbyters in Rome, but the first among them, in an emerging understanding of the office of bishop as distinct from presbyter. It is noteworthy that this list does not place Peter as the first bishop of Rome; the idea that the bishop possesses an office
117 Cf. Trevett, Montanism, 56–9; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 394–5.
118 Cf. Tertullian, Prax. 1.
119 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 404–6.
Irenaeus of Lyons
continuous with that of the apostles only begins in the following century with Cyprian of Carthage.
As such, the list cannot be older than Eleutherus himself. We do, however, have an interesting mention of such a list from a few decades earlier. According to Eusebius, Hegesippus composed five treatises describing his travels as far as Rome around the year 160 and his meetings with various bishops. After commenting on the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Hegesippus made the following recollection, preserved by Eusebius:
And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true doctrine until Primus was bishop of Corinth, and I conversed with many of them on my voyage to Rome, and spent some days with the Corinthians during which we were refreshed by the true Word. When I was in Rome, I composed a succession until Anicetus
[ª b K Å, ØÆåc KØÅ Å åæØ ØŒı], whose deacon was Eleutherus; Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him came Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city things are as the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord preach. (h.e. 4.22.2–3) The phrasing of the key part of the second sentence is extremely awkward, leading to various suggested emendations. The word 'succession'
(ØÆå) seems to mean neither a bare list or catalogue of names, nor a succession of teaching in the abstract, but rather refers to a genre of literature that would have included a list of names of teachers, interspersed with anecdotes about their lives and aspects of their teaching.120
However it is striking that, although he says that he established this list or succession to Anicetus, the other names he gives in fact come after Anicetus. We should probably conclude that, when Hegesippus visited
Rome, he established to his satisfaction that Anicetus stood in the continuity of that true teaching which the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord preached, and which, no doubt, he would claim goes back to the apostles themselves. Yet we have no indication from Hegesippus himself of a list tracing a succession of such leaders, nor even any indication that this occurred to him. Neither have we seen, when tracing the history of Christianity in Rome, any indication, prior to Eleutherus, that any leader in Rome thought of himself as being the leader of the whole Church there,
120 The expression ØÆåc KØÅ Å is confirmed by all the MSS, and also by the Syriac version. For a historical analysis of the term ØÆå, see Allen Brent, 'Diogenes
Laertius and the Apostolic Succession', JEH 44/3 (1993), 367–89, and Hippolytus and the Roman
Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop
(Leiden: Brill, 1995), 446–50.
Irenaeus of Lyons made up of numerous and diverse communities. Neither, finally, have we seen any attempt to record the successions of leaders within particular communities, though no doubt each community did preserve with reverence the names of their departed.
Thus it would seem that, when Hegesippus wrote his memoires, a few decades later, he recalled three specific names: Anicetus, who led the community during his visit, followed by Soter, and then Eleutherus,
Anicetus' former deacon. This kernel (and perhaps very idea) of a list of succession was then expanded during the time of Eleutherus, incorporating other names from the history of Christianity in Rome, some more commonly known, such as Clement and Pius, Hermas' brother, and others who are more shadowy figures. And, given Eleutherus' attempted and novel action towards other communities, the purpose of this expanded list was to promote Eleutherus' claims to a monepiscopal oversight of all the Christian communities in Rome.
We next hear of Irenaeus corresponding with a Roman presbyter called Florinus. According to Eusebius, Irenaeus' letter was known as On the Sole
Sovereignty or That God is not the Author of Evil (h.e. 5.20.1). Eusebius preserves an extract from the letter, which we give here in full:
[4] These teachings [a ªÆÆ], O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to a sound mind. These teachings are inconsistent [I çøÆ] with the Church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These teachings not even the heretics outside the Church ever dared to proclaim.
These teachings, the presbyters who were before us, those who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. [5] For while I was still a boy [ÆE Ø þ],
I knew you in lower Asia with Polycarp, fairing illustriously in the royal court, and endeavouring to make a good impression on him. [6] I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years (for what you learn from childhood grows up with the mind, becomes united with it), so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he used to discourse [Ø ºª ], and his goings and comings, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and the discourses [a Øƺ Ø] he delivered to the people, and how he used to recount [Iªª ºº ] his association with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, as how he used to remember [I Å ı ] their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching [B ØÆ ŒÆº Æ]; having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life' [cf. 1 John 1.1], Polycarp used to relate all things in harmony with the Scriptures [Iªª ºº Æ çøÆ ÆE ªæÆçÆE]. [7] I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart, and ever, through the grace of God, do I genuinely ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and
Irenaeus of Lyons
apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and shut his ears and, as was his custom, would have exclaimed, 'O good God, to what time have you preserved me that I should endure [IåøÆØ] these things?' And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. [8] And this can be shown plainly from the letters which he sent, either to the neighbouring churches strengthening [KØ Åæ Çø] them, or to some of the brethren, admonishing [ıŁ H] and exhorting [ææ ] them. (h.e.
5.20.4–8) In this way, then, Irenaeus wrote to Florinus attempting to correct him by recalling him back to their common inheritance, the teaching of those who were 'presbyters before us and who were companions of the apostles'. The content of Irenaeus' concern with Florinus is not indicated by the content of this extract, but the title given to the letter—On the Sole
Sovereignty or That God is not the Author of Evils—indicates that it related to the ditheistic teaching of Marcion.121
This extract is also important for the incidental details it provides of Irenaeus' relation to Polycarp. He and Florinus had both heard Polycarp in lower Asia, presumably Smyrna, at a time when Florinus was 'fairing illustriously in the royal court [K Bfi Æ ØºØŒBfi ÆPºBfi]', probably referring to employment by the emperor in some capacity rather than a physical building, and trying to make a good impression upon Polycarp.122 It is striking, and important to note, that Irenaeus uses the imperfect tense to describe his memories of Polycarp: the teacher 'used to discourse' and 'used to recount' his reminiscences of John and others who had seen the Lord, and he 'used to remember' their words, and, having received this from the eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life', he 'used to relate' all things 'in harmony with the Scriptures'. The overwhelming impression is that Irenaeus himself had had a long period of acquaintance with Polycarp, making notes of his teaching 'not on paper but in my heart'. We will return to the importance of this, and how it qualifies our understanding of his statement that he 'was still a boy', when we consider the chronology of Irenaeus' life at the end of this chapter.
121 This is confirmed by two passages from Against the Heresies: 1.27.2, Marcion 'advanced the most daring blasphemy against him who is proclaimed as God by the Law and the Prophets, declaring him to be the author of evils', and that Jesus came 'from that father who is above God and that made the world'; and 3.12.12, 'And indeed the followers of Marcion do directly blaspheme the Creator, alleging him to be the Creator of evils . . . maintaining that there are two beings, gods by nature differing from each other—one being good, the other evil'. Emphasis added.
122 Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 17–21.
Irenaeus of Lyons There are two further themes in this extract that will also be taken up later. First, although Polycarp's words 'O good God, to what time have you preserved me that I should endure these things?' may sound rather intolerant, the word 'endure' or 'forbear' becomes a key theological term for Irenaeus' understanding of the economy of God and his 'forbearance' towards the apostasy of the human race so as to bring about its salvation and its participation in his own life.123 The second theme is how Polycarp is described as realting all things 'in harmony with the Scriptures', for Polycarp should be understood as an important exegete of the Scriptures, and, as we will see when examining Irenaeus' own work, 'harmony' or 'symphony' is a guiding concept in his theological vision.
According to Eusebius, Florinus was then drawn to the teachings of Valentinus, and Irenaeus responded with a work called On the Ogdoad. He does not mention the addressee of this work, nor provide any extract from it, but mentions only 'a most beautiful note' found at the end of the treatise:
I adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the copy. (h.e. 5.20.2)
We do, however, have an extract, preserved in Syriac, of a letter from Irenaeus to Victor concerning Florinus, who, in the introduction to the extract, is described as 'a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus'. The text reads as follows:
Now, however, inasmuch as the books of these men may possibly have escaped your observation, but have come under our notice, I call your attention to them, that for the sake of your reputation you may expel these writings from among you, as bringing disgrace upon you, since their author boasts himself as being one of your company. For they constitute a stumbling-block to many, who simply and unreservedly receive, as coming from a presbyter, the blasphemy which they utter against God. Just [consider] the writer of these things, how by means of them he does not injure assistants [in divine service] only, who happen to be prepared in mind for blasphemies against God, but also damages those among us, since by his books he imbues their minds with false doctrines concerning God.124
123 This influence is reinforced if we accept, with Charles Hill, that Polycarp was the author of the Letter to Diognetus, in which the idea of 'forbearance' is used, in a developed manner, to understand the 'forbearance' of God to creation in a similar manner to Irenaeus.
Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 149–50; Diogn. esp. 9.1–2.
124 Syriac fragment no. 28 in the edition of Harvey (ii. 457); in ANF 1 (p. 576) it is numbered as fragment no. 51.
Irenaeus of Lyons
Although the inscription to the letter, and the extract itself, have no external point of corroboration, they do coincide well with what Eusebius says about Florinus and Irenaeus' work On the Ogdoad. If we accept the trustworthiness of this witness, it would seem that, having formerly exhorted Florinus to return to their shared inheritance, Irenaeus wrote not to Florinus himself but to Victor, urging action. As far as we can tell from the extract, however, Irenaeus does not request Victor to 'dismiss' or 'excommunicate' Florinus. Even Eusebius, when describing earlier on what happened to Florinus, simply says that he had 'fallen away from the presbytery of the Church [æ ı æ ı B KŒŒºÅ Æ I ]' as had
Blastus also, who 'suffered a similar fall' (h.e. 5.15). Rather than thinking of Florinus as being a 'presbyter' of the 'bishop' Victor, all indications are that they both belonged together to the 'presbytery of the Church' in Rome, an arrangement that we have seen repeated over the course of the second century—but that, as we have also seen, during the second half of that century, the disciples of Valentinus were progressively distancing themselves from the broader community. It is in this context that we should read the assertion in the above extract, that Florinus was 'boasting of being one of the company' of Victor, no doubt to urge the acceptance by others of the books that he had authored or was circulating. Victor's standing among the Christians in Rome is thereby also indirectly established. Quite what Florinus was teaching is unclear.125 In response to this,
Irenaeus urges Victor to clarify the situation, not by commanding the destruction of these books, but rather by taking a stand against them.126
It is striking that, despite his standing and authority in Rome, Victor seems to have been unaware of what was being circulated with association to his name.
Florinus was not the only Roman presbyter to receive a written rebuke from Irenaeus about this time, for he also addressed a work, On Schism, to Blastus (h.e. 5.15, 20.1), who had broken from the Church, perhaps on the 125 The universal history of the tenth-century Agapius (Mahboud) of Menbidj gives an account of Florinus' literary and teaching activity, which some have thought to be Valentinian, but is not really so; this report, however, is of dubious reliability. Cf. Agapius, Kitab al-'Unvan, PO 7.4, pp. 516–17; Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 500–1, n. 37.
126 Contrary to Elaine Pagels's claim (Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York:
Random House, 2003), 147–8) that 'when Irenaeus confronted the challenge of the many spiritual teachers, he acted decisively by demanding that believers destroy all those "innumerable secret and illegitimate writings" that his opponents were always invoking'. Irenaeus nowhere demands that anyone destroy certain books. As Raymond Starr ('The Circulation of Literary Text in the Roman World', CQ 37/1 (1987), 213–23, at 219) points out, even emperors in this time would have had difficulty carrying out such an action.
Irenaeus of Lyons basis of paschal practice.127 It was regarding the celebration of Pascha, and the conflicts that had arisen concerning the Quartodeciman practice of Asian Christians—that is, their celebration of Christ's Pascha on the fourteenth of Nisan—that Irenaeus wrote one more time to Victor, and that is the last we hear of Irenaeus. Eusebius preserves extracts from this letter of Irenaeus, and embeds it within his own retelling of the controversy, told from the perspective of a fourth-century bishop. It therefore needs to be examined with some care.
According to Eusebius, 'no small controversy' arose because the communities (ƃ ÆæØŒ ÆØ) of Asia thought it right, 'as though by a more ancient tradition', to observe the feast of the Saviour's Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon, and so 'to finish the fast on that day, whatever day of the week it might be' (h.e. 5.23.1). Yet such was not the custom 'in the churches throughout the rest of the world, for from apostolic tradition they kept the custom which still exists that it is not right to finish the fast on any day save that of the resurrection of our
Saviour' (h.e. 5.23.1). Eusebius then asserts that 'many meetings and conferences of bishops [ Ø c ŒÆd ıŒæ Ø KØ Œø]' were held about this, and 'all unanimously formulated in their letters the doctrine of the Church for those in every country that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection from the dead could be celebrated on no day save
Sunday, and that on that day alone we should celebrate the end of the paschal fast' (h.e. 5.23.2). He asserts that still extant are the letters of those who meet in Palestine, in Rome, in Pontus, in Gaul, in Osrhoene, and in Corinth, 'and of very many more who expressed one and the same opinion and judgement and gave the same vote' (h.e. 5.23.4). Eusebius then mentions the letter from Polycrates on behalf of the bishops in Asia, addressed to Victor and the Church of Rome, in which he asserts the apostolic precedent for their practice, with Philip and John, and the other great luminaries who have shone in Asia: Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenaea, Sagaris of Laodicaea, Papirius, and Melito of Sardis (h.e.
5.24.2–5). 'All these kept the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, never swerving, but following according to the rule of the faith [e ŒÆeÆ B ø]' (h.e. 5.24.6). After mentioning his own background, as the eighth bishop of his family, having lived for sixty-five years in the Lord, and having studied all holy Scripture, he asserts that he is 'not afraid of threats' and that 'I could mention the bishops who are
127 Cf. Ps-Tertullian, Adv. omnes. haer. 8.
Irenaeus of Lyons
present whom you required to be called by me [o E MØ Æ ÆºÅŁBÆØ F], and I did so' (h.e. 5.24.7–8).
Upon receiving this letter, 'Victor, who presided at Rome', took immediate and drastic action: in Eusebius' words, Victor immediately tried to cut off from the common unity [I Ø . . . B ŒØB ø] the communities of all Asia [B Æ Å . . . a ÆæØŒ Æ], together with the adjacent churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and he indited letters announcing that all the brethren there were absolutely excommunicated
[IŒØøı]. (h.e. 5.24.9) This action, not surprisingly, caused an uproar! Bishops issued counter requests to Victor, urging him to consider the cause of peace, unity, and love towards his neighbours (æe e ºÅ , h.e. 5.24.9). Among these was Irenaeus, who exhorted Victor at length not to 'cut off whole churches of God [c IŒØ ‹ºÆ KŒŒºÅ Æ Ł F]' for following a tradition of ancient custom (h.e. 5.24.11). Eusebius then transcribes two extracts from the letter of Irenaeus. The first is as follows:
For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast; for some think that they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, some count their day as forty hours, day and night. [13] And such variation of observance did not begin in our own time, but much earlier, in the days of our predecessors who, it would appear, disregarding strictness maintained a practice which is simple and yet allows for personal preference, establishing it for the future, and none the less all these lived in peace, and we also live in peace with one another and the disagreement [ØÆçø Æ] in the fast confirms our agreement
[›ØÆ] in the faith. (h.e. 5.24.12–13) The second extract follows immediately, recalling earlier history, and seems perhaps to have preceded the first extract.
Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader, I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Sixtus. They did not observe it themselves, nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them, and though they did not keep it they were nonetheless at peace with those from the communities in which it was observed when they came to them, although to observe it was more objectionable to those who did not do so.
[15] And no one was ever rejected [I ºŁÅ Æ] for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist to those from other communities who did [Iºº ÆPd c ÅæF ƒ æe F æ æØ E Ie
H ÆæØŒØH ÅæF Ø PåÆæØ Æ], [16] and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for
Irenaeus of Lyons strife between them on this matter. For neither was Anicetus able to persuade
Polycarp not to observe it, inasmuch as he had always done so in company with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to keep the custom of those who were presbyters before him. [17] And under these circumstances they communed with each other [KŒØÅ Æ ÆıE], and in the Church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, for the peace of the whole Church was kept both by those who observed and by those who did not [ Å B KŒŒºÅ Æ NæÅ Kåø, ŒÆd H ÅæFø ŒÆd H c
Åæø]. (h.e. 5.24.14–17) Eusebius then simply concludes his account of this controversy by saying that 'Irenaeus, who deserved his name, making an eirenicon in this way, gave exhortations of this kind for the peace of the church and served as its ambassador, for in the letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised, not only with Victor but with many other leaders of the church' (h.e. 5.14.18). We have no other mention of these letters to other leaders of the Church, to indicate whether they were directed solely to leaders of communities in Rome or further afield, to Asia and perhaps elsewhere.
Eusebius has presented us with a heavily redacted account of the controversy.128 The first point to note is that, although Eusebius says many letters are extant, including one from Irenaeus, expressing a unanimous consensus that the paschal fast should not conclude on any day save that of Sunday, the day of the resurrection, the only two letters he cites, from Polycrates and Irenaeus (no less!), testify to the opposite practice, that the apostolic tradition they knew was to conclude the fast on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week it might be. Eusebius' interpretation of the two letters he has in hand is clearly shaped by the step taken by the Council of Nicaea in 325 to separate the date of Pascha from the Jewish calendar and to insist that it be celebrated universally on the same day, eventually coming to settle on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox.129 Likewise, although Polycrates does himself refer to a request from Victor to summon bishops together to 128 Cf. W. L. Petersen, 'Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy', in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 311–25.
129 For the evidence we have of what was discussed at Nicaea, see Peter L'Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils
(Crestwood: SVS Press, 1996), 19–26, and, more generally, Alden A. Mosshammer, The Easter
Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).