The CFs: SS or STC

[Porknpie]

Oops. I meant to say, “I am planning to use Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, but more likely I’ll stick more to the first two.”

Please also define SS …there’s more than one definition.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Koineman:

I would consider a church father to be upholding SS if he spoke in such a way as to make Scripture the final authority over tradition, and the sole infallible authority.

Post #35

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Post #35

By whom and what date?

 

[guanophore]

By whom and what date?

That is the definition for this thread.

 

[Koineman]

Please also define SS …there’s more than one definition.

That has already been done. See earlier in the thread.

 

[Koineman]

From Chapter 12:

No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our seeking, therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own—that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.

I think it’s vital at this point to specify what Tertullian said that rule of faith was:

Chapter 13.
Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

Tertullian has two standards: adherence to the apostolic churches (explained in other chapters already posted) and the rule of faith. In the first quote above, from ch. 12, he makes it clear that any seeking for truth is to be done within the confines of the rule of faith and the church. He then goes on to define the “rule of faith.” Heretics doubt (raise questions) this rule of faith, but among those in the church, no questions about it are raised. He does approve of curiosity for the purpose of clearing up uncertainty (ch. 14), but he also seems to speak negatively of seeking, saying that it is better to remain in ignorance than to end up believing something one ought not to believe:

So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. … t is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know. Your faith, He says, has saved you Luke 18:42 not observe your skill in the Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation.”

Here he seems even to put the rule of faith over Scripture, pointing out that it is faith that saves, not skill in the Scriptures. Of course, he is not devaluing Scripture or minimizing its importance—that can be seen in the quote that Fr of Jazz posted (from Against Marcian, IV, 5); rather he is warning against the danger of excessive curiosity, that it can potentially lead to heresy.

This is not sola scriptura, but it’s noteworthy.

These two standards are echoed in chapter 32:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles.

… But should they even effect the contrivance [tracing their church back to the apostles], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. **To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. **Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic.

Finally, it’s important to note that Tertullian makes it clear that the rule of faith was completely handed down in its entirety (pointed out in earlier postings) by the apostles, such that nothing needs to be added to it. Heretics were trying to justify their additional teachings by claiming that the apostles did not hand on everything they knew. Tertullian refutes this claim, thus making it clear that the apostles did, in fact, hand on the faith in its entirety, such that the faith that exists in the churches of his time was the complete rule of faith.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

That is the definition for this thread.

Oh, I see. Yes, that’s the definition. In my post above here I was detailing what I thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Oh, I see. Yes, that’s the definition. In my post above here I was detailing what I thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS.

I’m sorry Fr of Jazz, I went through this whole thread and I failed to find that “post above” which detailed what you thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS. Could you please give us the post number or the quote?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m sorry Fr of Jazz, I went through this whole thread and I failed to find that “post above” which detailed what you thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS. Could you please give us the post number or the quote?

Sure. Check out my post #3 (May 15) to which Koineman responded in post #5 (May 16). Also I discussed some questions for clarification in post #35 (May 16, 9:52 am) to which Koineman responded in post #40 (May 16, 10:52).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . . .
Finally, it’s important to note that Tertullian makes it clear that the rule of faith was completely handed down in its entirety (pointed out in earlier postings) by the apostles, such that nothing needs to be added to it. Heretics were trying to justify their additional teachings by claiming that the apostles did not hand on everything they knew. Tertullian refutes this claim, thus making it clear that the apostles did, in fact, hand on the faith in its entirety, such that the faith that exists in the churches of his time was the complete rule of faith.

I think, as with all of your summaries, this is well said.

Two nuances, IMO, should be made clear.
(1) The fact that the whole deposit of faith is in the churches from the time of the apostles does not mean that every last truth inherent in it is held explicitly in the minds of believers as distinct propositions. Insight, application, and drawing out into explicit formulation what had been implicit in the deposit of faith all take time. The mystery of life in Christ is far more than can ever be held explicitly in mind at any one time.

(2) Tertullian’s Against Marcian, IV, 4 & 5 also develop an argument from antiquity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sure. Check out my post #3 (May 15) to which Koineman responded in post #5 (May 16). Also I discussed some questions for clarification in post #35 (May 16, 9:52 am) to which Koineman responded in post #40 (May 16, 10:52).

I’m sorry, but your first post IN THIS THREAD is #20 (May 15) Are you talking about your post in another thread? Maybe you could just give the quote.

Again, my question:

I’m sorry Fr of Jazz, I went through this whole thread and I failed to find that “post above” which detailed what you thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS. Could you please give us the post number or the quote?

The reason I persist in this questioning, is that it may give Koineman a type of quote or line of reasoning to look for in the ECFs instead of this being just a general discussion of Church Fathers and their teachings on various aspects of the Church.

After all, I think Koineman has affirmed that SS is taught by the ECF’s, or at least I assume he has. So far he hasn’t brought ANY ECF teaching along these lines, at least not in this thread, as far as I can see. Correct me if I am wrong.

We certainly have plenty of definitions of what SS is, and which one Koineman adheres to. We also have your own reasonable addendum to that definition, which I paraphrase “my interpretation at this time.”

But I don’t see where any of this is being discussed in the ECFs, unless we count the quotes by Tertullian which deny the heretic the right to use the Scriptures at all. We also see where the ECFs identify how to recognize the True Church, and how that Church passed on its teachings (STC)

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry, but your first post IN THIS THREAD is #20 (May 15) Are you talking about your post in another thread? Maybe you could just give the quote.

I see you are trying to get your bearings in this discussion. For future reference, Koineman, when you start a thread like this, it sometimes helps to provide a link to the thread from whence it was spawned.

The reason I persist in this questioning, is that it may give Koineman a type of quote or line of reasoning to look for in the ECFs instead of this being just a general discussion of Church Fathers and their teachings on various aspects of the Church.

I think the first two posts of this thread make it very clear that Koineman is approaching this task quite open mindedly (something I find refreshing). It was never a “general discussion on various aspects” but clearly focused on SS and ST.

After all, I think Koineman has affirmed that SS is taught by the ECF’s, or at least I assume he has.

I think the second post of the thread makes his assumption quite clear.

So far he hasn't brought ANY ECF teaching along these lines, at least not in this thread, as far as I can see.  Correct me if I am wrong.

As a bystander enjoying the dialogue, it has seemed clear to me that the task was to examine the Fathers to see what was there in relation to SS and Sacred tradition. I don’t see that Koineman has made any assertion to prove a point one way or the other. And so far, he has taken the lead in locating and very professionally summarizing massages from Tertullian on the role of Sacred Tradition.

We certainly have plenty of definitions of what SS is, and which one Koineman adheres to. We also have your own reasonable addendum to that definition, which I paraphrase “my interpretation at this time.”

I think it is appropriate to be generous, and allow Koine to work from his own for this purpose.

But I don’t see where any of this is being discussed in the ECFs, unless we count the quotes by Tertullian which deny the heretic the right to use the Scriptures at all. We also see where the ECFs identify how to recognize the True Church, and how that Church passed on its teachings (STC)

This principle is, in fact, how this discussion got started. Koine, in the other thread linked above, was asking if Catholics had a list of the infallible teachings of the Church. The issue of whether or not Protestants have a right to use scripture as a rule of faith is not uncommon on CAF, but rarely have I seen any Reformed Christian willing to approach the ECF’s with such an open mind.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m sorry, but your first post IN THIS THREAD is #20 (May 15) Are you talking about your post in another thread? Maybe you could just give the quote.

Again, my question:

I’m sorry Fr of Jazz, I went through this whole thread and I failed to find that “post above” which detailed what you thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS. Could you please give us the post number or the quote?

The reason I persist in this questioning, is that it may give Koineman a type of quote or line of reasoning to look for in the ECFs instead of this being just a general discussion of Church Fathers and their teachings on various aspects of the Church.

After all, I think Koineman has affirmed that SS is taught by the ECF’s, or at least I assume he has. So far he hasn’t brought ANY ECF teaching along these lines, at least not in this thread, as far as I can see. Correct me if I am wrong.

We certainly have plenty of definitions of what SS is, and which one Koineman adheres to. We also have your own reasonable addendum to that definition, which I paraphrase “my interpretation at this time.”

But I don’t see where any of this is being discussed in the ECFs, unless we count the quotes by Tertullian which deny the heretic the right to use the Scriptures at all. We also see where the ECFs identify how to recognize the True Church, and how that Church passed on its teachings (STC)

OK, the history is that in a discussion with Koineman in another thread he disputed that the fathers taught STC and wanted to explore the evidence first hand.

I notice that the numbering differs depending on what display mode one is using. The dates and times for this thread are accurate as are the post #s, although I see I switched between modes occasionally.

In “Threaded Mode” under “Display” (this thread) in my post #3 (May 15, '13, 6:51 pm) (#23 in “Linear Mode”) I offer James White’s definition of SS as the test to see if any ECF indeed teaches and practices SS. I also noted:
“And based on this [a definition] we need to know what qualifies as a father teaching SS and not. For example, if St. So and So says in resolving a problem that Scripture is probative, that doesn’t equal SS. After all the position is Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It should not at all be surprising that proofs from Scripture are used. The issue is whether he teaches and practices SS as defined.”

Koineman in his post #5 (May 16, '13, 8:25 am) (#35 Linear) suggested that the definition of the Cambridge Declaration would be better because it is more succinct. He responded to what I noted saying: “I agree. Merely using Scripture to prove something does not necessarily mean SS. I think that’s pretty obvious. I would consider a church father to be upholding SS if he spoke in such a way as to make Scripture the final authority over tradition, and the sole infallible authority.”

In my post #6 (May 16, '13, 9:52 am) (#36 Linear) I agreed with his comment. I followed with some clarifying qq.

The discussion in these three posts–particularly the caution I noted in my post #3–constitute the “post above” which detailed what I thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS.

In his post #4 (May 16, '13, 10:53 am) (#40 Linear) he agreed with some clarifications and delayed discussion of others since they are not, in his view, immediately relevant to exploring the ECFs teachings.

It is my understanding that Koineman wants first to come to agreement as to what (in this case) Tertullian is saying in his particular writings so as to be able to assess what his teaching and practice, his thought, is on the subject.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

OK, the history is that in a discussion with Koineman in another thread he disputed that the fathers taught STC and wanted to explore the evidence first hand.

I notice that the numbering differs depending on what display mode one is using. The dates and times for this thread are accurate as are the post #s, although I see I switched between modes occasionally.

In “Threaded Mode” under “Display” (this thread) in my post #3 (May 15, '13, 6:51 pm) (#23 in “Linear Mode”) I offer James White’s definition of SS as the test to see if any ECF indeed teaches and practices SS. I also noted:
“And based on this [a definition] we need to know what qualifies as a father teaching SS and not. For example, if St. So and So says in resolving a problem that Scripture is probative, that doesn’t equal SS. After all the position is Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It should not at all be surprising that proofs from Scripture are used. The issue is whether he teaches and practices SS as defined.”

Koineman in his post #5 (May 16, '13, 8:25 am) (#35 Linear) suggested that the definition of the Cambridge Declaration would be better because it is more succinct. He responded to what I noted saying: “I agree. Merely using Scripture to prove something does not necessarily mean SS. I think that’s pretty obvious. I would consider a church father to be upholding SS if he spoke in such a way as to make Scripture the final authority over tradition, and the sole infallible authority.”

In my post #6 (May 16, '13, 9:52 am) (#36 Linear) I agreed with his comment. I followed with some clarifying qq.

The discussion in these three posts–particularly the caution I noted in my post #3–constitute the “post above” which detailed what I thought would be a sign of an ECF teaching or practicing SS.

In his post #4 (May 16, '13, 10:53 am) (#40 Linear) he agreed with some clarifications and delayed discussion of others since they are not, in his view, immediately relevant to exploring the ECFs teachings.

It is my understanding that Koineman wants first to come to agreement as to what (in this case) Tertullian is saying in his particular writings so as to be able to assess what his teaching and practice, his thought, is on the subject.

Thanks for the explanation! I had no idea post #'s could change depending on your display mode.

@ guanaphore: Thanks for your help too. I thought Koineman was asserting that the ECFs taught SS.

 

[Koineman]

As a bystander enjoying the dialogue, it has seemed clear to me that the task was to examine the Fathers to see what was there in relation to SS and Sacred tradition. I don’t see that Koineman has made any assertion to prove a point one way or the other. And so far, he has taken the lead in locating and very professionally summarizing massages from Tertullian on the role of Sacred Tradition.

Thank you, Guanophore, and yes, you’re right about the purpose of this thread, which I expect to be a prolonged exploration into what the church fathers had to say about either SS or STC, or both. This is not a cherry-picking effort, in which we selectively post only those CF passages that support our respective views. If we do that, this will be nothing but an exercise in futility. Also, I don’t see this as a debate about SS vs. STC. I am not going to debate in this thread. This is a historical exploration into what the CFs had to say about these two topics.

I hope that clears it up for people.

 

[Koineman]

So are we done with Tertullian? If so, is there a particular CF work that anyone would like me to delve into? If not, I’ll find something.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

So are we done with Tertullian? If so, is there a particular CF work that anyone would like me to delve into? If not, I’ll find something.

I’d say so.

St. Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses and St. Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata includes our subject, and are both from the same era as Tertullian.

Agreed, no cherry picking if that means selecting only passages supporting our respective positions while excluding others. But IMO for the longer works we may have to be selective, but careful to include all material dealing with our theme. Oversights are possible, but we’ll all keep each other “honest.”

Let me add a suggestion: perhaps we could start the new CF directly under the OP. That way we won’t have to excavate down through the thread to get to it.

On another note, I’ll be on vacation from 5/28-6/10. I’m very lucky to be doing some traveling this year with my brother and some friends in France. I hope to see the Cathedral of Saint-Étienne in Metz. It is the 3rd tallest cathedral in France and contains the largest net area of stained glass in the world. I’ll say a prayer for everyone in our patristics discussion thread there. We’ll be mostly in Alsace however. Say one for us that it is a safe and relaxing trip. I will catch up with the discussion when I get back.

 

[Koineman]

I think, as with all of your summaries, this is well said.

Two nuances, IMO, should be made clear.
(1) The fact that the whole deposit of faith is in the churches from the time of the apostles does not mean that every last truth inherent in it is held explicitly in the minds of believers as distinct propositions. Insight, application, and drawing out into explicit formulation what had been implicit in the deposit of faith all take time. The mystery of life in Christ is far more than can ever be held explicitly in mind at any one time.

True, but as far as I understand Tertullian in the passages posted thus far, he doesn’t touch on this detail.

(2) Tertullian’s Against Marcian, IV, 4 & 5 also develop an argument from antiquity.

I’ll post those two chapters with my usual summary.

 

[Koineman]

Against Marcion, CHAP. IV.
We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion’s Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.3 For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty;5 and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion’s the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence;7 and Marcion’s should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later one—a century later than the publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel. With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke’s Gospel (so far as its being the common property10 of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,) that portion of it which we alone receive12 is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke’s which is current amongst us15 (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). No one censures things before they exist, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure,17 an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone—so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that,19 heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man’s audacity, not of God’s authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not “above his master;” if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, “Whether it be I or they, so we preach;”21 if Marcion be a prophet, even “the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets,” for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated “as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel,”23 because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.

When two sides claim to both have the true gospel—that is, the Gospel according to Luke— the only sure way to distinguish the true from the false is to determine which side has the more ancient source for its gospel. It can be clearly seen which side is the more ancient by seeing the one who tries to amend it. One cannot amend something that does not exist; thus, Marcion’s change came later. Error always follows truth, never the other way around.

 

[Koineman]

Against Marcion, CHAP. V

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly3 bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order5 of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ7) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course,9 has its churches, but specially its own—as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm.11 Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence13 to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s15 whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.17 And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account19 concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they21 existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them—either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural23 that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short,25 he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us,27 so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way—when once29 he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith2 of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches4 which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

Since the apostles authored their work in the beginning, then what they passed down can be found in what has been kept by their churches. In all these churches—including those established by the apostles as well as those who share the same gospel as the apostles—the Gospel according to Luke has remained steadfast since its beginning, unlike Marcion’s gospel, which is unknown to most. The authority of the apostolic churches will also confirm the apostolicity of the other gospels, including that of Mark, who was an interpreter for Peter, and that of Luke, which people usually attribute to Paul. These were written by disciples, but the work of the disciples can be seen as the work of their masters. In short, Tertullian maintains that the work of forgers is clearly seen by their later date, and he maintains the authority of churches that support the apostolic tradition.