Tertullian & Apostolic Succession

Let me return, however, from this digression to discuss the priority of truth, and the comparative lateness of falsehood, deriving support for my argument even from that parable which puts in the first place the sowing by the Lord of the good seed of the wheat, but introduces at a later stage the adulteration of the crop by its enemy the devil with the useless weed of the wild oats.

For herein is figuratively described the difference of doctrines, since in other passages also the word of God is likened unto seed.

From the actual order, therefore, it becomes clear, that that which was first delivered is of the Lord and is true, while that is strange and false which was afterwards introduced.

This sentence will keep its ground in opposition to all later heresies, which have no consistent quality of kindred knowledge inherent in them — to claim the truth as on their side.

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.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.

For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step.

For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.

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.

But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not.

Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles.

For by this method they will be more easily reprobated, when they are detected to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of the (tares) which then were.

Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:12 This opinion was the special property of the Sadducees. A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection.

Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Galatians 5:2 Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as forbid to marry he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. 1 Timothy 4:3 Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against those who said that the resurrection was past already. 2 Timothy 2:3 Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves.

When again he mentions endless genealogies, 1 Timothy 1:4 one also recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain Æon, whosoever he be, of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight ten other Æons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty Æons.

The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are in bondage to elements, Galatians 4:9 points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and then compares it with God, who has no beginning.

By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his power to be in bondage to a being which he puts on a par with God.

John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those who eat things sacrificed to idols, and who commit fornication. Revelation 2:14 There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian heresy.

But in his epistle he especially designates those as Antichrists who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, 1 John 4:3 and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion.

The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels, was itself actually reckoned among idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s own person.