[Footnote 482: People are fond of speaking of the "Asia Minor" theology of Irenaeus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John--Irenaeus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and Gnosticism and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposition that Irenaeus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irenaeus cannot be separated from the received _canon_ of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenaeus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenaeus (and Melito?).] [Footnote 483: Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace.] [Footnote 484: See Molwitz, De [Greek: Anakephalaioseos] in Irenaei theologia potestate, Dresden, 1874.] [Footnote 485: See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.] [Footnote 486: But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin's chief Antignostic work.] [Footnote 487: According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the _status quo ante_, according to that of Irenaeus he first and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity.] [Footnote 488: According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of _Sophia_, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenaeus' idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenaeus himself did so in II. 20. 3.]