should we then be obliged to keep by the Tradition of the ecclesiæ apostolica? and if a dispute arose about a modica quæstio, should we not turn to the Presidents of the oldest Churches, in order to obtain certainty.* It is evident that Irenæus could not here refer to the fundamental doctrines of faith, for about them, according to him, no dispute could arise; he could only refer to disputes respecting points of worship, and the like. We must perceive that at that period unanimity was desired, not only on dogmatical, but on ritual questions. It is remarkable how Irenæus was obliged to bear witness against himself. In the controversy respecting Easter between the Roman Church and those of Lesser Asia, an appeal was made by the former as to the circumstance that it professed the true Tradition, and Victor, bishop of Rome, excommunicated the latter. Irenæus entered a protest against this arrogance, and showed that unimportant differences might exist in the traditions. Inaccuracies might arise from simplicity and ignorance, and acquire a power through custom.† The same thing might be said of Tradition generally. TERTULLIAN, in controversy with the Gnostics, wished to establish the theory of an independent self-evident proof. He attempted it in a work, which forms an era for the doctrine of Tradition on the Catholic standpoint: De præscriptione adversus hæreticos. Præscriptio denotes a general formal argument, by which the incompetency of another person is proved; for example, dismissal of a suit on account of the lapse of time. In like manner, Tertullian wished to find an argument that should take away for ever from all heretics, the right to come forward with a new doctrine against the Church. For, owing to the arbitrary manner in which the Gnostics treated Holy *Adv. Hær. i. § 1. Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de præsenti quæstione sumere, quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem? si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? f Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 24, 4.—τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηροῦντων οὐ νῦν ἐφ' ἡμῶν γεγονυῖαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν τῶν παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς ὡς εἰκὸς κρατούντων, τὴν καθ ̓ ἁπλότητα καὶ ἰδιώτισμον συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετέπειτα πεποιηκότων· καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας την ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. Præscriptio vetustatis contra novitatem. Writ, nothing was to be gained by disputing with them. But they were also not competent for such a controversy, for the sedes apostolica were the Ecclesiæ matrices*, from which the apostolic doctrine had been propagated to all other Churches; consequently, these Churches taken together form an Ecclesia apostolica, and the outward communion with this Apostolic Church, must be a mark of the profession of the true and original apostolic doctrine. The Canon of Interpretation was the regula fidei made use of at baptism. It had been propagated with the Apostolic doctrine in the Church, and along with it the natural interpretation of Holy Writ. Whoever falsified this doctrine must also falsify the Scriptures. In fact, the charge that the heretics had a false exegesis was, in most cases, well founded. In the sedibus apostolicis, says Tertullian, the succession of bishops who have taught the same doctrine, is traced back to the Apostles: the heretics, on the contrary, have made their appearance later, and have falsified the truth that was previously found. If the Gnostics said that the falsification arose from a general misunderstanding of the Apostles, he rejoined, how could the Holy Spirit have so greatly neglected his office as to allow the Churches to misunderstand the doctrine which he himself had made known through the Apostles, and how could unanimity proceed from error?" Thus he placed the Prescription of Antiquity and the Truth, in opposition to innovation and wilful schism from the Church. Tertullian thought, indeed, that the Exposition of Holy Writ was sufficient for the refutation of error, but yet considered it important to oppose heretics by an adequate authority. Thus Tradition furnished him with a rule for expounding Scripture, against which there could be no gainsaying, He appealed also to Tradition to prove points on which Scripture offered no evidence. But these were only ritual observances. The occasion of the controversy in which he was here engaged is worthy of notice. It appears that there were laymen who maintained, that even when Tradition gave its testimony in favour of any matter, still it was insufficient without that of Holy Scripture. On Tertullian's becoming a Montanist, he found another source for the knowledge of Christian truth, namely, the new + Præscript. c. 27, 28. * Præscript. 15 sq. Corona militis, c. 2-4. TERTULLIAN A MONTANIST. 81 Revelations of Montanus, and the other pretended prophets. He regarded them as divine revelations, necessary to the completeness of Christian knowledge. It is very evident that Montanism found a point of connexion with his former views, in the tendency of his mind to seek for certainty in an external authority. He admitted, indeed, that Heretics could be refuted from Scripture alone; but Heresy, although of foreign origin, tried to support itself by some passages of Scripture torn from their connexion, notwithstanding that other passages served to confute them. But Heresy having now extended itself far and wide, the new Revelations through the Paraclete were needed, to prevent a general unsettlement. Even Montanism professed to place itself on the immoveable foundation of the Faith presented by Tradition, but added to it a new characteristic. It insisted on a progressive development, and impugned a rigid adherence to that which was given once for all. Satan's kingdom does not stand still, why should the kingdom of God? Montanism admitted various stages in the development of the Christian consciousness, until it reached the ripeness of manhood. When the conversion of the Heathen commenced, Christianity was obliged to condescend to human weakness. But the new Revelations of the Paraclete were in harmony with a more advanced standpoint, to which the Montanists assigned the promise of the Spirit to the Apostles, in the Gospel of John. Occupying this standpoint, Tertullian relied on Tradition as long as it did not come into collision with the pretended new Revelations. Thus in the passage referred to above, in opposition to those who required in every instance the authority of Holy Writ, he says, that in many cases they themselves admitted that which was only known by Tradition. He holds that the idea (ratio) was the internal ground of Tradition; but that, so far as outward practice was concerned, authority took the precedence, in order that men may afterwards become conscious of the ratio. On the other hand, he opposes Tradition, when the original tradition is brought to bear against Montanism. In this mood he says, Truth demands this, against which no prescription, no length of time, no respect of persons, can avail. For custom often proceeds from ignorance or simplicity, and thus acquires power by the lapse of time. But Christ our Lord called himself the G Truth, not Custom."* His language here is exactly opposite to what he asserted in his Præscriptio. Tertullian in this respect exerted a powerful influence on Cyprian. In the controversy respecting the baptism of heretics, he impugned the validity of custom against Stephen, the bishop of Rome. Custom without Truth, he says, is the old age of error. Elsewhere he remarks, In vain do those who are overcome by reason, oppose custom to us, as if custom were greater than truth, or as if we ought not to follow that in spiritual things, which is better revealed by the Holy Spirit." 66 The Alexandrian Theologians also built on the foundation of ecclesiastical Tradition; the connexion of their Gnosis with it distinguished this as γνῶσις ἐκκλησιαστική from the heretical. Clement recognises a κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας which was derived from apostolical Tradition.§ He contrasts the divine basis of Christianity in Tradition, with the arbitrariness of human doctrines. He urges the unanimity in the Catholic Churches against the Gnostic systems at variance with one another, and Antiquity against novelty. Origen, also, considers the rule of Faith given in Tradition, as setting a limit to speculation beyond which it may not pass. But the inquisitive, scientific spirit of the Alexandrians was averse from confining the exposition of Holy Writ by such an outward rule, or wishing, like Tertullian, to put down their opponents by the authority of Tradition. Clement rather urged upon his opponents to examine for themselves that they might be convinced. To meet the objection of the Greeks that there were so many sects among Christians, he said that every one could find and learn *De virginib. velandis. c. 1.-Hoc exigere veritatem, cui nemo præscribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. Ex his enim fere consuetudo initium ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita, in usum per successionem corroboratur et ita adversus veritatem vindicatur. Sed dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit. † Ep. 74. c. 9.-Nec consuetudo quæ apud quosdam obrepserat, impedire debet, quominus veritas prævaleat et vincat. Nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Ep. ad Jubaian, 73. c. 13. § Strom. vii. p. 762. || De princip. proem. c. 2.—Illa sola credenda est veritas quæ in nulla ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione. THE ALEXANDRIAN THEOLOGIANS. 83 the truth in Holy Writ; how heresies led into error; how, on the contrary, the most exact knowledge was only to be found in the Truth and the original Church. He regards Holy Writ as the highest criterion of Truth, and adds, "We wait for no human testimony, but bring proof of what we assert from the Word of the Lord, which is the most trustworthy, or rather the only evidence."+ The relation of πίστις and γνῶσις as stated by Clement, corresponds to that of a faith which proceeds from Tradition alone, and a faith which is developed from Holy Writ. Yet when any one first attains to faith, the knowledge of the essential Christian doctrines is communicated to him by Tradition, He then proceeds to examine the Scriptures for himself, and learns the doctrines of Christianity in their connexion, from the Scriptures. The Gnostic, he says, grows old in the study of Holy Writ; when it was objected to him that even the yvworxol did not take all they taught verbally from the Scriptures, he replied that they breathed in it and lived in it, and deriving their germs of thought from it, received the sense although not the verbal expression.§ But as the Platonists and Gnostics made a distinction between exoteric and esoteric Tradition, so also the Alexandrians, in accordance with the analogous distinction of the standpoints of the πιστικός and the γνωστικός, fell into the error of admitting a Gnostic tradition that belonged only to the susceptible class. A natural desire also led them to prove an historical connexion of Truth and its antiquity. It was also their prevailing opinion that the highest truths might be propagated not by writing, but only by oral communication. Clement|| treats of such an unwritten Gnostic tradition, which even the Apostle Paul preferred communicating not by letter, but in person; and Origen says, "Certain things which we think of acquiring by much examination and inquiry, whether by God's grace or Strom. vii. p. 755. + Ibid. i. p. 757.—ἀμέλει πρὸς τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων εὕρεσιν, αὐτῇ χρώμεθα κριτηρίῳ· κ.τ.λ. * Ibid. i. p. 762, sq.—ἄρα ἡμῖν μόνος ἐν αὐταῖς καταγηράσας ταῖς γραφαῖς, τὴν ἀποστολικὴν καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴν σώζων ὀρθοτομίαν τῶν δογμάτων, κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὀρθότατα βιοῖ, τᾶς ἀποδείξεις, ὡς ἂν ἐπιζητήσῃ, ἀνευρίσκειν ἀναπεμπόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὑπό τε νόμου καὶ προφητῶν. § Ibid. i. p. 700. Il Ibid. v. p. 578. |