33479147 Patristics for Protest Ants

8/8/2019 33479147 Patristics for Protest Ants

1/42

PATRISTICS FOR PROTESTANTS

Introduction

Christians of the twenty-first century stand upon a millenia-old foundation of blood and blood-

earnest struggles unlike any other movement in history. Every other idea, philosophy, or religion ofhumanity that in its time once captivated the most fervent spirits and wrested into its service the

sharpest intellects of humankind has soon disappeared as suddenly as it came. Not so with Christianity:

from that first day in which, according to his promise, the resurrected Christ poured out his Spirit upon

the twelve apostles, there has been an unbroken succession of men and women devoted to theunchanging gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with an intensity of commitment unexplainable by any who

have not likewise known the soul-entrancing beauty of the Good News of Christ, the God-Man.

What rivers of blood have poured from the veins of old men and young boys, tender youngwomen and stooped-over grandmothers, those bold in personality and those timid and shrinking by

nature, and all because, having once devoted themselves to this Savior of men, they could never again

turn aside, no matter what the cost! What brilliant thinkers have poured out all the energies of their

youth and old age alike into their pursuit of the unsearchable depths of the person and work of thisSavior, and never exhausted the subject! What golden-tongued preachers and orators have stirred up

masses of ordinary people to acts and lives of good works and piety unthinkable to those who have not

the same spirit! What fiery polemicists have torn and rent every skulking wolf of heresy, stripped thembare, knocked out all their lying teeth, for the preservation of the flock of God!

Seeing that these things are so, and knowing but the merest fraction of the earnest and devoted

lives and works of so many generations before us, who in dependence upon the same Spirit of Godhave sought the unchanging truth of the Gospel, it is beyond argument that the historic myopia

plaguing much of modern Christianity, particularly among the various denominations and branches of

Protestantism, is utterly at odds with the nature of Christianity which is, after all, a religion foundedupon nothing but the solid, historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and thereafter built up

through its generations in real history, by real men and women, who really did and thought andbelieved those things they considered to be in continuity with the apostolic teachings and traditions, asrecorded in the inspired Word of God.

To ignore or despise the witness of the Church in the first several centuries after the ascension

of Christ, therefore, is foolish at best, and may render one susceptible to damning heresies, at worst.

Today, as with the early Church, there are heresies afoot which do despite to the Gospel of God's freeand sovereign grace, and overturn the only sure foundation of our eternal salvation. But many of these

heresies have already been soundly refuted, some two thousand years ago and yet, people perish for a

little ignorance of history!But not only have the church fathers something very relevant and very profound to say to the

ever recurring heresies concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ; they also may have

much more to say to the Roman-Protestant controversies than many Protestants have sometimes beenaware. Rome has a long history of earnest interaction with these fathers so much so, in fact, that to

many Protestants, the church fathers are simply Catholic authors, not in the appropriate sense of the

term (that is, by virtue of the fact that they speak with the approval of and in essential agreement with

the acknowledged, universal Church, as it existed and thought and taught up to their period of history);but rather, in that common sense of the term which would see them in agreement with the dogma of the

Vatican that is, in the sense that would view them as Catholic in opposition to and mutual

distinction from Protestant.


2/42

Of course, this is anachronistic: many of the doctrines of the Vatican did not develop until manycenturies after these church fathers lived and died; and while isolated statements and passages may

evince the seed-form of ideas, practices, or doctrines that have since become the entrenched dogma of

Roman Catholicism, yet the whole tenor and mindset of all their writings may often be utterly opposed

in principle to the ways in which those ideas have since developed. Many early writers, considering anunrelated subject, have said things unclearly or unwisely which later generations, combating new

heresies, have found necessary to clear up. In such cases, it is never a legitimate method of

argumentation to wrest those miscontextualized snippets into service in a doctrinal battle that had notyet arisen in their own day.

But the sword cuts in both directions: if it is not allowable to Rome, neither is it allowable to

Protestants to use the fathers in historically insensitive ways. But given the nature of the debate, whichis over concerns that have largely arisen long after the fathers died, this is often a difficult principle to

put into practice. It is much easier to take a phrase or paragraph and exuberantly claim, See, this father

is saying precisely what we are saying!. In some cases, perhaps, this may be true; but in most cases, it

is simply not the case, for the fathers in question are addressing altogether different issues. What theysay may and probably does have some bearing on the question; but it is not a direct answer to the

question. Rather than reading them, therefore, as though they were addressing the questions of a

sixteenth-century debate, we ought to read them, first and foremost, on their own terms; and only thenbring those principles which they themselves teach to bear upon a later, related debate. This is much

more difficult a process; but ultimately, it is the only honest and helpful way of proceeding 1.

Before you read a line of this anthology, therefore, and especially if you are a Protestant seekingammunition for polemics against Roman theology (not that this is wrong in and of itself), and not just

someone with no firm convictions as yet, or a wavering Protestant who is thinking of turning to Rome

and wondering if the Vatican has a real case for its claim to be the true Catholic Church, in apostolicsuccession from the first twelve, I have a caution for you, from Alexander Pope: A little learning is a

dangerous thing! This anthology, by its very nature, is prone to being misused. If I did not believe the

potential benefits to outweigh the risks, I would not even publish it; but given the equally dangerous

and much more pervasive problem of historical naivety, I have decided that these risks are lesssubstantial than the possible help it may afford many persons, who are genuinely struggling with these

issues and who have rightly realized that if, in the first seven centuries of Church history, nobody ever

said the things that Protestants have claimed are central to the gospel, then Protestantism mustnecessarily be on very shaky ground. That is just what certain Roman apologists would have you

believe; but any honest and careful searching of the evidence reveals a much different and more

nuanced reality. This compendium of the fathers will give no one a full-orbed understanding of whattheir struggles were and why they expressed themselves the way they did; but I think it will prove

beyond cavil that the fathers were not generally opposed to the core Protestant doctrines, but on the

contrary often expressed themselves in ways that, if not directly in support of, are at least very

compatible with those doctrines which a new era and a new controversy drove the Reformers toformulate in precise terms, just as a millennium before, other controversies drove the fathers to

formulate orthodox trinitarian theology in precise and unequivocal terms.

So much for the introductory vindication of the project's validity and cautions against itsmisuse; it now remains only to describe it in short. In essence, this is a categorized and lightly

annotated selection of usually brief quotations from the church fathers on topics which are either of

importance to the debate between Rome and Protestantism, or else enlightening with respect to somecurrently popular understanding of the atonement or any other theological topic, which is at odds with

the historic Protestant understanding. The editor and compiler of these quotations believes the historic

Reformed faith to be a basically scriptural and catholic (i.e., in continuity with the teachings of the

1 I am thankful to Dr. Richard Bishop for wisely impressing some of these principles upon me.


3/42

universal Church from the days of the apostles to the modern era) system of doctrine; and that, whilemany of the fathers may have had weaknesses and blind spots, as theologians of every age are prone to,

which led them in some superficial respects to have some things in common with the modern Roman

Church, yet, in reality, the gist of their beliefs are more alike in spirit to the Reformers than the Roman

apologists. To use the words of the great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, I know that the old writers[i.e., the church fathers] sometimes speak rather harshly; and, as I have just said, I do not deny that they

have perhaps erred; but those of their writings that were marred with a few spots here and there become

utterly defiled when they are handled by these men's unwashed hands [i.e., the hands of the medievalschoolmen, who were instrumental in developing many of the doctrines of the Roman Church in

Calvin's day].

In addition to the categorized quotations and annotations, there will also be a very briefintroduction to each of the major headings under consideration, in which it will be attempted to give an

explanation of the history and controversies surrounding the production of the works there excerpted,

in order to preclude, inasmuch as possible, any misuse of the fathers due to a wrongly anachronistic

reading of them. It should be remembered, however, that for a proper evaluation of the doctrine of thefathers, it is necessary both to be well-acquainted with their history and to read in total entire works and

bodies of works, and not just a few short selections alone. If this list only proves that Rome's

presumption to have the fathers' on their side is not so cut-and-dry as some like to make out, and thusdrives some questioner to a more rigorous examination of early church theology, which goes far

beyond the bounds of this volume, it will have accomplished its intended purpose.

A few final points: one issue upon which the fathers spoke with unanimous consent, and towhich we would do well to listen carefully, is the way in which they approached the Old Testament

scriptures as a thoroughly Christian document, which everywhere and in every way testified of Christ.

The fathers' hermeneutic, although it has sometimes (regrettably) been made the subject of muchdisdain, was in reality quite as variegated as Protestant hermeneutics today; and yet, in the various

ways in which they approached the scriptures, they all sought the same end of seeing Christ and his

work in the entire corpus of Old Testament writings a goal which they had in common both with

Christ and the apostles who wrote the New Testament scriptures. Because I believe there is much wemight learn from them in this respect, I have included a few discussions of hermeneutics, as well as a

few examples of Old Testament exegesis, and a selective list of passages in which the fathers saw either

direct prophecies or types of Christ in the Old Testament.It being a very loosely valid suggestion that the earlier fathers had a lesser distance from the

apostles, and thus an inroad to addressing and bringing out apostolic concerns without the weight and

complications of many controversies which followed the death of the first twelve, I have considered itadvantageous to distinguish the fathers who lived and wrote before the Nicene Council from those who

lived during and afterwards; which I have done by giving the names only of the Ante-Nicene fathers in

all capital letters; and furthermore, unless some specific reason drove me to do otherwise, I have listed

the selection of quotations in a basically chronological order.Finally, the quotations provided are usually taken from the series of Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. by

Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson); the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series (ed. by

Philip Schaff); and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, (ed. by Philip Schaff and HenryWace). Occasionally, when a quotation I have employed is not included in these series, I have provided

my own translation from the Migne Patrologia Graeca or the Migne Patrologia Latina; these rare

exceptions I have indicated in the footnotes.I do not need to remind the reader that the issues here touched upon and the outcomes which

their belief or rejection may effect are eternal in duration and vast beyond all expression in their

importance and gravity. Heaven and hell hang in the balance; and what's more, the very glory of the

Most High God, which we with our lips profess to defend, we may be found out on the Day ofJudgment rather to have blasphemed and despised, if we prove to be in error on these, some of the most


4/42

weighty of all controversies in history. Let us be driven to a spirit of humility and supplication,therefore, before we ever delve into these fathers, whom we respect as men of God before us who by

their careful, Spirit-reliant wrestlings may preserve us from some great blasphemy and the eternal

perdition into which it may plunge us. 2

Synopsis of Subjects Considered

I. Authority

Church Government

Apostolic Succession

Supremacy of Rome/the Papacy

Tradition

II. The Scriptures

Canonicity- How/by what authority the canon was determined- The extent of the canon

Authority of Scriptures

III. Justification and Sanctification

Justification by grace alone

Justification through faith alone

Imputation of the righteousness/active obedience of Christ (also, infusion of

righteousness/justification as make vs. declare righteous)

Sanctification

IV.The Atonement

Penal Substitution

Other models of the atonement

V. Additions to the Sole Sufficiency of Christ's Work

Prayers for the dead/purgatory

Supererogatory works/condign merit; penance/indulgences

Prayers to the saints; intercession/mediation of the saints

Marian doctrines

Veneration of relics/icons

2 This project is only in the very beginning stages of its formulation, and by no means ready for actual publication. In the

meantime, any feedback regarding the nature, scope, or progression of the design; the content of the footnotes; or

suggestions of further useful quotations is welcome.


5/42

VI. The Sacraments

Their number

Baptism: its significance, efficacy, mode, and subjects

The Eucharist: its significance and efficacy

VII. Hermeneutics

Discussion of hermeneutical principles

Examples of literal/grammatical hermeneutics

Scriptures seen as either types or direct prophecies of Christ

Scriptures used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity

VIII. Asceticism

Cautions against

Reasons given in support of

Selections

I. Authority

Church Government

CLEMENT OF ROME

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so]from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,

then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received theirorders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word

of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God

was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their

labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who shouldafterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written

concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their

bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith. (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 42) 3

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of theoffice of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave

instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their

ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent

men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a

3 Here, we see indication that the apostolic office was temporary, and ceased with the establishment of the eldership and

diaconate, which would be permanent; and also, a clear understanding of the latter two offices as the only scriptural

ecclesiastical offices.


6/42

humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all,cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 44) 4

IGNATIUS

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop I mean not of a

mere human, but of a spiritual naturehow much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to

him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree inunity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of

God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the

whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested hispride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resisteth the proud. Let us be careful, then, not

to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. (Epistle to the

Ephesians, chap. 5).5

For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner

of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may

escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should donothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope,

in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the

ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are notministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all

grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop asJesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of

the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the

same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your

bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom Iimagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But

shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a

condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle? (Epistle to the Trallians,chap.s 2-3)6

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are notpuffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the

4 Further indication that the apostolic office was temporary, and ceased with the establishment of the eldership anddiaconate, which would be permanent; also, definite assent to the active role of the congregation in the appointment of

persons to those offices, which at the same time expresses a high degree of respect for the official authority of the

officers.

5 The mistaken notion of contemporary Evangelicalism, that being a Christian is primarily a matter of the individual,

personal, and experiential is here eloquently argued against.6 This passage is an indication of the early date at which the original structure of the Church, with Bishops/Elders and

Deacons (see Clement, above), gave way to a tripartite structure of Bishops, Elders (as a distinct office) and deacons.

However, it must be emphasized that Ignatius seems always to consider every local church as having its own bishop,presbytery, and diaconate, and not a bishop who oversees a group of presbyters, each with his own church. In this

respect, Ignatius seems in a sense to be closer to the common Reformed division between a teaching/preaching elder

(whom he calls the bishop) and ruling elders (whom he calls the presbytery) with the difference that he accords very

definite primacy to the bishop over the presbytery. While Ignatius accords all of the church officers very high honor, healso holds them accountable to live in an manner worthy of their high calling, as authorized representatives of Christ and

the apostles; still, he sees them and himself as having an intrinsically lesser authority than the apostles who spoke the

inspired truth.


7/42

enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is,he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his

conscience. (Epistle to the Trallians, chap. 7)

For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, isnot deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes, and detects the secrets [of the

heart]. For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to

the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehandthe division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got

no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop;

keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ,even as He is of His Father. (Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap. 7) 7

Apostolic Succession (see also, Church Government)

CLEMENT OF ROME

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel

first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerninghimself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that

inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then

shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. (1 st

Letter to the Corinthians, chap 47)8

IGNATIUS

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I

am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a

servant. (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4)9

IRENAEUS

Chap. III. 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 ofanything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, whichthey 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 . Forthey 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;

7 There are several other similar passages in the epistles of Ignatius, in which he makes his threefold division of theoffices of the Church very clear, and which, for the sake of space, I have decided not to include.

8 An indication that the apostles were of higher authority than the church leaders (their successors) when Clement was

writing (very shortly after the death of the apostles).

9 It is interesting that, in writing to the church at Rome, Ignatius emphasized the apostolic authority of Peter and Paulabove his own authority, with no indication that this apostolic authority existed still in the Roman church in fact, in

writing such a letter to them, he indicates that his own authority is on an equal plane with theirs, and must therefore be

of an entirely different character from the apostolic authority shared by Peter and Paul.


8/42

which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but ifthey 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; [wedo 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 meansof the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with

this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the

apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.(Against Heresies , Book Three, chap. 3)10

Supremacy of Rome/the Papacy

IGNATIUS

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I

am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, aservant. (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4)11

IRENAEUS

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; [wedo 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 meansof the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with

this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the

apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.(Against Heresies , Book Three, chap. 3)12

10 There follows a listing of the bishops succeeding the apostles both in the Roman and other prominent churches. It is

evident in Irenaeus, as with others, that his ultimate goal in emphasizing the apostolic succession of the bishops in all

true churches of Christ is to argue against those heretics who formed new and unauthorized assemblies, claiming toknow hidden mysteries, which the apostles had delivered only to the perfect, which go beyond the faith once and

for all delivered to the saints. Not so, says Irenaeus, for if the apostles had delivered special knowledge to anyone at

all, it would certainly have been to the leaders of the churches they gave of themselves to establish and these churches

all preach the same gospel we believe; if you doubt, consider the unbroken succession of bishops teaching the same faith

from the time of the apostles. Thus, apostolic succession was subservient to the greater point of conformity to apostolicteaching.

11 It is interesting that, in writing to the church at Rome, Ignatius emphasized the apostolic authority of Peter and Paul

above his own authority, with no indication that this apostolic authority existed still in the Roman church in fact, inwriting such a letter to them, he indicates that his own authority is on an equal plane with theirs, and must therefore be

of an entirely different character from the apostolic authority shared by Peter and Paul.

12 This indication by Irenaeus that the Roman Church has pre-eminent authority should not be taken out of its context:

Irenaeus is arguing against heretics who claim to have received special knowledge, by secret transmission among theperfect, from the apostles, who knew deep and hidden truths which they concealed from the common people of the

Church. Not so, says Irenaeus, For if they had revealed their hidden secrets to anyone, it would have been to their

hand-selected leaders of the churches. And what church has a more notable pedigree than the Roman church, which both


9/42

FERMILIAN, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (to CYPRIAN)

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from

the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact,that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he

may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them

alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things arevaried because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure

at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make;

breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love andhonour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who

in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is

of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church

alone. (Epistles of Cyprian, 74, sec. 6) 13

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of

sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the oneChurch which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to

Peter alone, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt

loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on theapostles alone, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto

them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained. Therefore the power of remitting sins was

given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishopswho succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which

we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in

opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah,

Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishments whichthey did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like

death to theirs?

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he whoso boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom

the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new

buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they whoare baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains,

of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the

Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and

deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound bythe grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession

the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate,

Peter and Paul labored to establish? Look at their gospel, therefore that has better claim to apostolicity, by greater

historical proof of unbroken succession, than any of these newly-sprung-up heretical churches. Indeed, all the faithful in

the whole world believe this same gospel, so how can a heresy which sprang up so much later overturn that faith, thehistoricity of which is well-testified?. We, too, would ask the same question: Which of us holds more closely to the

faith preached by the Roman and other apostolic churches, up to Irenaeus's time? Is it the Vatican, with its host of

strange doctrines that appeared much later? Or rather the doctrines of the Reformers, who strove to re-discover the

simplicity of the apostolic faith? That is the question that must ultimately be answered.13 Not only is the idea of the supremacy of the Roman Bishop (Stephen) here met with disdain, but it is candidly admitted

the Roman Church has sometimes failed to follow apostolic teachings (and how much more so today!), and that the

apostle Peter and Paul by no means speak through or are represented by any one bishop.


10/42

but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, thefilth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make

sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver.

He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what

else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? Andnow he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to

meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar

and sacrifice. (Epistles of Cyprian, 74, sec.s 16-17) 14

Gregory the Great

...I beg you, I beseech you, and with all the sweetness in my power demand of you, that your

Fraternity gainsay all who flatter you and offer you this name of error [Universal Bishop], nor

foolishly consent to be called by the proud title. For truly I say it weeping, and out of inmost sorrow of

heart attribute it to my sins, that this my brother, who has been constituted in the grade of episcopacyfor the very end of bringing back the souls of others to humility, has up to the present time been

incapable of being brought back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented to

teach himself, even when I implore him.Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed,

and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless

you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you willbecome by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title:

and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your

brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of allthe brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostle Paul,

when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ 1 Corinthians 1:13, regarded with

the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it

were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in thename of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain

heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who

is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all hismembers under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this

wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted

to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit

upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the

clouds; I will be like the most High Isaiah 14:13.

For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whoselife and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And

when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in

comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throneabove the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of

14 Fermilian's argument, which seems to be consonant with Cyprian's understanding, is that the one true authority of thekeys, first given to Peter, was then given to all the apostles, acting in unity, and is now the possession of all the bishops

who have succeeded them. At any rate, the authority wielded by Stephen, or any bishop for that matter, was by no means

so great that, if he should err at all from the apostolic teachings, which are recorded in their sacred writings, he has

thereby wandered from that only foundation upon which his authority rests. This is a necessary presupposition forFermilian's argument; and regardless of whether or not he was right on the matter of baptism, a corollary truth for our

day is that, no bishop, no matter what power he may arrogate to himself, ought to be obeyed or believed if he strays at

all from the teachings of the apostles.


11/42

preaching, and glitter in the light of good works? And when your Fraternity despises them, and youwould fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will

ascend above the heights of the clouds? All these things when I behold with tears, and tremble at the

hidden judgments of God, my fears are increased, and my heart cannot contain its groans, for that this

most holy man the lord John, of so great abstinence and humility, has, through the seduction of familiartongues, broken out into such a pitch of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be

like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace of the likeness granted him,

and because he sought false glory, thereby forfeited true blessedness. Certainly Peter, the first of theapostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they

but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all

together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints undergrace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of

them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you

swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who

was truly holy.Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by

the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable

Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seizedupon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of

singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren. (Book Five, Epistle 18)

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church

was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do

you love Me? Feed My sheep [John 21:17]. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you aswheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted,

strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:31]. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build

My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the

kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; andwhatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven [Matthew 16:18].

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him,

the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universalapostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am

compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!...

...If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the headof all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he

who is called Universal falls. But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the

honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by one.

Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod ofChalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity,

lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour

due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and anotherpresumes to seize it for himself though not offered?

He, then, is rather to be bent by the mandate of our most pious Lords, who scorns to render

obedience to canonical injunctions. He is to be coerced, who does wrong to the holy Universal Church,who swells in heart, who covets rejoicing in a name of singularity, who also puts himself above the

dignity of your Empire through a title peculiar to himself.

Behold, we all suffer offense for this thing. Let then the author of the offense be brought back to

a right way of life; and all quarrels of priests will cease. For I for my part am the servant of all priests,so long as they live as becomes priests. For whosoever, through the swelling of vain glory, lifts up his


12/42

neck against Almighty God and against the statutes of the Fathers, I trust in Almighty God that he willnot bend my neck to himself, not even with swords. 15(Book Five, Epistle 20)

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of

Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one ofmy predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is

called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from

the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem inthe least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this

honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself

perforce.Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract

from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due...

...For it is because he is near of whom it is written, He is king over all the sons of pride [Job

41:25] not without sore grief I am compelled to say it that our brother and fellow bishop John,despising the Lord's commands, precepts, and rules of Fathers, attempts through elation to be his

forerunner in name...

...For, if this expression is suffered to be allowably used, the honour of all patriarchs is denied:and while he that is called Universal perishes per chance in his error, no bishop will be found to have

remained in a state of truth . (Book Five, Epistle 43)

I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow bishop that, if he

desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to

this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offense ought not to beengendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to

consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case

that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly

pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if theweight of the wrong, there is universal disaster.Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, ordesires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly

puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverseone wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he

extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalts himself shall be

humbled [Luke 14:11; 18:14], I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the moreinflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any

offense by the appellation of a frivolous name. (Book Seven, Epistle 33)

For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in thepreface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make

use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no

more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For asfor me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour

whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal

Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour dueto all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are

yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and

wound charity. (Book Eight, Epistle 30)

15 Although Gregory does here accept the pre-eminence of Peter, he continues his frequent and vociferous argumentations

against anyone at all claiming to be preeminent among the bishops of the Universal Church.


13/42

Tradition

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 FatherAlmighty, 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 sendspiritual 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 Hiscommandments, 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 thetradition 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 maybe 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)16

3.

But in this, the third bookI shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures , so that I may come behind innothing 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 ofthe 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

16 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 apostlesthemselves 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.


14/42

declare: He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sentMe. (Against Heresies, Book Three, Preface)17

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 ofheaven 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 despisesthe 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)18

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 viv 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 intermingledthe 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 thehidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to

17 In this classic passage, standing at the head of his third bookAgainst Heresies, and in which he provides some of theearliest 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 thescriptures can in no wise be called apostolic, or said to have apostolic authority.

18 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.


15/42

this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies ,Book Three, chap. 2)19

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 fromthem what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostlesthemselves 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 ofChrist 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, theSaviour 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 ofwritten 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 wouldat 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, amongwhom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap.4)20

TERTULLIAN

19 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 soundlyestablished 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, arenot 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 thetraditions 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.20 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 writtenWord, are thereby enabled to stand firm in the truth.


16/42

21They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In theencounter 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 onpoints 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 onlyone 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 willlikewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions....

...after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Juda, 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 otherchurches, 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 thingmust 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 topreach, (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 preachedin otherwords, what it was which Christ revealed to themcan, 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 viv voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their

epistles22. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees

with the apostolic churchesthose 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 fromChrist, 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

21 Because this is one of the strongest arguments from the Ante-Nicene fathers against the Reformed doctrine ofsolascriptura, 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 surprisinglyopposed in principle to the contemporary Roman dogma. Footnotes highlighting certain of these places will be found

throughout the text.

22 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'sprevious 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.


17/42

apostles, and whether all otherdoctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood. We hold

communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from

theirs. This is ourwitness of truth....23

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 .24

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom theLord 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 thosemysteries, which it was not permitted the people to understand?...

Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit 25, 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 whatswaddling-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 intervalthe 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, werewrongly 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 havepreceded 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 writtenyea, the doctrine itself writes to its own churchThough

an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be

accursed....26

23 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.

24 Tertullian argues forcefully against the idea that the apostles either did not know all necessary doctrine, or did notcommit 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.25 Anyone who rejects the clear claims of the scripture, Tertullian says, must not have the Holy Spirit.

26 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 Romanapologists 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 significantthat 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.


18/42

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church ofSmyrna, 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)? Butshould 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 thingswhich 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.... 27

Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have weintroduced, 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. 28 (On the Prescription Against

Heretics, selections from chap.s 1538) 29.

Rufinus

This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the Newthe 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 beenhanded down to the Churches of Christ. (A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed, sec. 36) 30

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 morefabulous 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)31

27 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.

28 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 thecatholicity 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.29 Clearly, Tertullian's doctrine was in some measure antagonistic to the Protestant doctrine ofsola scriptura, but his

reasoning is different in certain key respects from that of the Vatican, as the previous footnotes point out.

30 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 (whichhe sees as none but the books of the Protestant canon).

31 Note what little respect Eusebius has for unwritten tradition which cannot be certainly substantiated, even from so early

and orthodox a father as Papias.


19/42

II. The Scriptures

Canonicity

- How/by what authority the canon was determined

Athanasius

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these

not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us,

and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom ofSirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the

Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read...

(From Letter XXXIX [For 367]) 32

Rufinus

This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the Newthe 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) 33

- The extent of the canon

Athanasius

In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern

of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce

into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspiredScripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were

eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having

been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the booksincluded in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has

fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in

purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is

handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and namesbeing as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then

32 This comes from a context in which Athanasius accords to the divine scriptures alone, by which he explicitly lists onlythe books of the Protestant canon all authority, sufficient for all matters of salvation; but to the books approved by the

fathers, he gives only his consent that they may be profitably read, but maintains a fundamental distinction between

them and the canonical books. Hence, the fact of divine inspiration is of vastly greater weight to Athanasius than the

approval of the fathers by tradition.33 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

are none but the books of the Protestant canon).


20/42

Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, afterthese four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third

and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book.

Again Ezra, the first and second [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is

the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then theProphets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch,

Lamentations, andthe epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far

constitutes the Old Testament.Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four

Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and

Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one ofJude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans;

then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians;

then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to

Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they

contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him

take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err,not knowing the Scriptures. And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are

they that testify of Me.

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besidesthese not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly

join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the

Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of theApostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being

[merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of

heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to

them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.(From Letter XXXIX [For 367]) 34

Augustine

And this certain Scripture which is called 'Of Maccabees,' the Jews do not consider as 'the Law and

the Prophets and the Psalms,' of which the Lord bears testimony as his own testimonies, saying, 'It isnecessary to be fulfilled all the things that are written of me in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms

(Luke 24:44); but they are received by the Church not without profit, if they are read or heard soberly.

(Against Gaudentius I, chap. 31, sec. 38)35

Jerome

34 With the possible exception of Baruch (if he is not referring to the scribal work of Baruch accorded a place in the

prophecies of Jeremiah), Athanasius clearly accords divine authority only to the books of the Protestant canon, andexplicitly disavows all others, including the books which we today know as Apocryphal, including in Roman Catholic

bibles.

35 My own translation [NP]. Here, Augustine seems to draw a distinction of degree in the profitableness of the scriptures

accepted as canonical by the Jews and the so-called Apocrypha, which the Church has received and which maytherefore be read not without profit; but in any event, he affirms that the Hebrew scriptures received by the Jews are the

same as those received by the Lord Jesus himself as those which bear testimony to him, implicitly denying that the Lord

Jesus ever considered the Apocrypha to be his own testimonies.


21/42

There are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, as is also witnessed by the language of the Syriansand Chaldeans, which is for the most part similar to the Hebrew; for these twenty-two elements also

have the same sound, but different characters. The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the

same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (or "endings" apicibus). And Ezra, the

scribe and doctor of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple underZerubbabel, is certain to have found (or "invented" repperisse) other letters, which we now use, when

up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and the Hebrews were the same. In the book of

Numbers this same total is also mystically shown by the census of the Levites and the priests. And wefind in certain Greek scrolls to this day the four-lettered Name of God written in the ancient letters. But

also the thirty-sixth Psalm, and the one hundred tenth, and the one hundred eleventh, and the one

hundred eighteenth, and the one hundred forty-fourth, although written in different meter, arenevertheless woven with an alphabet of the same number. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his

prayer, also at the end of the Proverbs of Solomon from that place in which he says "Who can find a

strong woman?" are counted the same alphabet or sections. Furthermore, five of the letters among them

are double: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade. For they write with these one way at the beginning and in themiddle of words, another at the end. From which also five are considered double books by most:

Documents

33479147 Patristics for Protest Ants