D. Tradition

Note: This list is a work in progress, and may change at any time both in the selection of quotations and the content of the annotations. In the meantime, feel free to offer any suggestions.

IRENAEUS

“1.The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.         2.As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Against Heresies, Book One, chap. 10)1

“But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined…. taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.” (Against Heresies, Book Three, Preface)2

“1.We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
        2.These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics. (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 1)3

“1.When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
        2.But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 2)4

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
        2.To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 4)5

TERTULLIAN

“6They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some.  In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt.  Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures….
        “Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions….
        “…after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.  Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).  In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery….
        ”From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles7. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.  Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth….8
        “They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity.9 What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand?…
        “Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit10, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established….
        “In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”…11
        “For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John…. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine….12
        “Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you.13” (On the Prescription Against Heretics, selections from chap.s 15—38)14.

Rufinus

“This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, ‘All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.’ And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ. (A Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, sec. 36)15

Eusebius

“The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” (History of the Church, Book 3, chap. 39)16

  1. This passage, the beautiful and compelling ecumenism of which it would do well for many Protestants to consider, clearly describes the unity of the church as having its foundations in the message of the apostles, which, as the apostles themselves so often proclaimed, was none other than the message of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures. Any supposed unity of the Church, therefore, which fails to admit the truth of the Holy Spirit’s written word, falls short of the unity described by Irenaeus.
  2. In this classic passage, standing at the head of his third book Against Heresies, and in which he provides some of the earliest and most strenuous arguments for the necessity of apostolic succession, Irenaeus makes it very clear that the Church must indeed hold fast to apostolic tradition, and indeed be built upon the same foundation, because they alone had the power of the Gospel, viz., the Truth, to which the inspired Scriptures bear witness. The apostles’ authority, therefore, was only that of the truth, as the Scriptures declare it; and anything not in accord with the truth of the scriptures can in no wise be called apostolic, or said to have apostolic authority.
  3. Apostolic authority, according to Irenaeus, came to full flower in the inspired writings of the apostles, which, according to the will of God, have since become the only immoveable pillar and ground of the truth for the Church.
  4. Although Irenaeus here speaks of both tradition and scriptures as possessing authority in the Church, it is clear that he intends every word first and foremost to be tested by the infallible scriptures; and that the Church, carrying down the same traditions from the apostles which find a permanent and unerring record in the scriptures, is therefore soundly established against the wild surmisings of the heretics, who, because they deny the written word and prefer instead the handing down of truth through the voice, open themselves up to countless errors. “Not so,” says Irenaeus, but those who have succeeded the apostles, because they have a firm written record to guide them, have carried on in vocal succession an untainted tradition, which may be easily established by weighing it against that written record. Hence, it is beyond cavil that they who claim to possess the truth by virtue of apostolic succession, if they at all oppose the scriptures, are not true successors of the apostles at all, but rather of the same spirit as the heretics, who claim to follow the vocal succession of truth which was spoken at one time by the Lord, and then by the apostles, and then by demiurges and arch-heretics of all kinds. So they who refuse to admit the pre-eminence of the scriptures, but say that they follow the traditions and the passing down of truth from one mouth to another, foolishly turning aside from the written record that God has left and straining to hear God’s voice first from one pope then another, soon find themselves far afield from the traditions left by the apostles, the sure and unchanging testimony of which is in their inspired depositories of sacred truth, viz., the scriptures.
  5. Here, Irenaeus accords primary authority to the written record of the apostles, but admits that barbarians with no access to the scriptures, if they have held fast to the same spoken apostolic traditions which purely accord with the written Word, are thereby enabled to stand firm in the truth.
  6. Because this is one of the strongest arguments from the Ante-Nicene fathers against the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, I have quoted selections from it at length. Although something could perhaps be said against its authority on the score that Tertullian, soon after he wrote this, left the Catholic Church which he so vigorously defends in it, I think it more profitable to show, even in the midst of his discourse, certain seeds of thought which turn out to be surprisingly opposed in principle to the contemporary Roman dogma. Footnotes highlighting certain of these places will be found throughout the text.
  7. Tertullian seems to indicate here that the substance of the epistles is identical with the substance of the former teaching, viva voce; which would mean that the New Testament epistles and oral traditions are not two different and complementary streams of authoritative doctrine, but rather that the epistles codified and made permanent all the authoritative oral tradition that had established the first apostolical churches. Hence, the tradition which has ongoing authority in the Church is nothing but what the epistles have gathered together in themselves. Hence, Tertullian’s previous arguments against arguing with heretics on the basis of the scriptures seems to have more of a force for arguing the Old Testament scriptures without appeal to the authoritative interpretation they have been given by the apostles, specifically in the New Testament epistles.
  8. We as Protestants would echo Tertullian here: “Our doctrine is no different from that of the apostolic churches, this is our rule and testimony of truth”.
  9. Tertullian argues forcefully against the idea that the apostles either did not know all necessary doctrine, or did not commit it at once to all people, so that, at a later time, men had to arise who would tell all people what the apostles had not given plainly and publicly. In this, it is manifest that Tertullian would overturn anyone who should arise after the apostolic period, and proclaim any doctrine that was not commonly held by all the Christian churches of the New Testament era; and this cannot but cut away any grounds for the doctrines which developed later in the Church’s history, which were not only unknown in the early Church, but opposed in spirit to the simplicity of its pure doctrine.
  10. Anyone who rejects the clear claims of the scripture, Tertullian says, must not have the Holy Spirit.
  11. In this very important passage, Tertullian forcefully argues that whatever doctrine is shown to have existed from the very beginning of the Church must be true – heresies all arose later, and in accordance with prophecy. Both the Roman apologists and the Protestants claim that their respective doctrine was believed in the apostolic Church – whoever can clearly establish their case must therefore win the day. What, then, is that doctrine, believed in the early Church, which stands as the eternal touchstone of all later doctrinal disputes? Only the gospel of justification by grace alone, which Paul expounds in Galatians, and curses anyone, whether apostle or angel, who does not subscribe to it. It is significant that Tertullian quotes Paul’s anathema here: to him, if one can substantiate the claim that any church preaches a different gospel than that expounded in Galatians, it must be a false church. Does Rome teach this Galatians gospel? I think a very strong case has been made by the sixteenth-century Reformers that in fact it does not.
  12. The highlighted portion of this paragraph provides a surprisingly clear and powerful argument in support of the Protestants’ conviction that they are indeed the true apostolical Church.
  13. This amazing paragraph cuts away any foundation Tertullian might have laid previously for any doctrine opposed to sola scriptura. At what may be viewed as something of a climax to his treatise, he sums up the support for the catholicity of the historic, orthodox Church of his day by arguing that they are fully in line with the scriptures, and that, in fact, the scriptures have indeed begotten them, in a sense. Whoever may rightfully claim, therefore, to be in accordance with the scriptures may also rightfully claim to be the true, apostolical Church.
  14. Clearly, Tertullian’s doctrine was in some measure antagonistic to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, but his reasoning is different in certain key respects from that of the Vatican, as the previous footnotes point out.
  15. Rufinus accords to the scriptures themselves the authority of God the Holy Spirit, but to the traditions of the fathers only the authority to discover which books, because they have been inspired, carry all the weight of divine authority (which he sees as none but the books of the Protestant canon).
  16. Note what little respect Eusebius has for unwritten tradition which cannot be certainly substantiated, even from so early and orthodox a father as Papias.

Leave a Reply