The Preservation of Dogma in the Church (2)

By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich

Tradition

The full significance of tradition in the original dogmatics of Christianity, the Christianity of the apostolic and immediate post-apostolic eras, is well elucidated in the aforementioned work by Seeberg, which in some places is indirectly directed against the Harnack school. We will allow ourselves to review the relevant pages of this book (in places softening the author’s theses), which until now Russian literature has not devoted even a bibliographical note to.

The earliest Christian communities felt themselves uplifted and carried by the Spirit of God. It was none other than the Spirit who possessed individuals, transformed them internally, and made them organs of divine influence upon their fellows. This Spirit apparently acts at times like a force of nature, so that one might sometimes think that He even draws people into non-Christian speech. “No one who speaks by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed.'”37 But most of all, His action was limited to spiritual and moral influence. Being the Divine power, He acted in human speech through personal communication. In the Gospel, His power became clearly manifest in faith and salvation. The Apostle Paul with particular insistence highlights this moral and spiritual element in the actions of the Spirit and places it in firm relation to the word of the believer.38 Christ and His Spirit act on individual members of the Church, imparting movement to their spirit. And this often occurs through the action of an individual on his brother. The diversely conditioned and adapted relationships of man to man are the conduits of the Spirit. Thus, through personally isolated teaching and influence, the transforming power of God can adapt itself to each individual person and give him precisely what he needs. God is not only the Creator of the world, not only the Lord of the Church; He, as the Holy Spirit of Christ, is the teacher and educator of each individual soul, for He comes to it in a way that it is capable of receiving Him. God moves souls not only through Christ, as the world-historical principle, but through all those who are moved by Christ and, receiving his impulse, pass it on. But this happens in such a way that precisely here and through this, the Spirit of God and Christ Himself moves the soul. Christ comes when the Spirit comes, for the Spirit receives from Christ what He proclaims. 39 Thus, the power of God in all aspects of life was demonstrated. They lived in a certain atmosphere of miracles, and from the words that one spoke to another about what they were experiencing, miraculous life flowed into the soul. And yet, apparently, as far as the sources allow, orgiastic and ecstatic acts are very rare in ancient Christianity. This is because the spiritual principle was historically limited. These boundaries were:

1) the authority of Christ’s words, including the image of Christ as it emerged in his preaching; 2) the Old Testament; 3) the authority of the historical apostleship. The concept of apostleship was defined, on the one hand, charismatically, through the possession of the gift of preaching,40 but, on the other hand, it also bore a historical stamp: the historical witnesses of Christ are apostles.41 By directing everything toward the significance of apostle in the latter sense,42 Paul greatly strengthened the authority of the historical apostleship, the exaggerated assessment of which he, however, wanted to limit. Cf. the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem according to the Apocalypse. If 1 Corinthians 15:7, which lists the appearances of the risen Lord “to all the apostles,” can be applied to apostles in the general sense—missionaries—then in Paul’s time it could be firmly insisted that every missionary see at least the risen Christ. 4) The early Christian tradition (παράδσις), which provided more or less firm formulas and traditions for faith and moral life. Apostle Paul repeatedly states that such formulas existed.43 This is also confirmed by a number of frequently repeated formal expressions in the New Testament, for example, the trinitarian formula, which is continually assumed and cited when the connection of thoughts does not require it.44

This “tradition” contained certain formulas of doctrine, and then a catalog of virtues and vices45 – “paths” by which Paul, according to himself,46 taught everywhere. Apostle Paul defines “the beginning of the word of Christ” in his Epistle to the Hebrews47 as “repentance from dead works and faith toward God,” with which it is connected; “the doctrine of baptism, and the laying on of hands,” i.e. The teaching of baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins and of the gift of the Spirit through the laying on of hands as the beginning of living faith. This also includes the “teaching of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.” Apparently, more detailed information about the work of Christ was not communicated to the catechumens. Since the Corinthians, like the Thessalonians, needed eschatological instruction, this last point is explored in the epistles of St. Paul, only in greater detail.

Such a “tradition” is constantly kept in mind by the apostolic epistles, constituting for the apostles themselves something as normative as the third and “words of Christ,” without being covered, however, by both. Besides “tradition”, παράδοσς, παραθη᾿ κη48 it bears among them many other names: (confession49, “faith”50, “truth”51 “teaching”52, “gospel”53 “healthy (υ᾿ γαίοντες) words”54, “words of faith”55, while “good” (καλή) or healthy teaching (διδασκαλι᾿ α)”56 means moral rules; this also explains the writing of a well-known monument, exclusively moralizing – Διδαχη’ των ιβ “Apoστδλωβν”; Barnabas also distinguishes the “word of faith” from the “commandments of doctrine” (διδαχης).57

Thus, from ancient times, alongside the free principle, the individualism of inspiration and enthusiasm, there stood a system of firm prescriptions, teachings, orders, customs, and historical authorities. The form remained not empty, but personal experience gave it content, and this experience became not a formless wandering of feeling, but adjoined the forms of the original knowledge of Christ. The struggle of the second century, around spirit and doctrine in their relationship, the struggle of faith-consciousness, is rooted, as we see, in the circumstances of the apostolic age. Even then, the spirit stood as a secondary (only) principle alongside the firm forms of church tradition, despite all the enthusiasm of the time. Enthusiasm quite accurately characterizes ancient Christianity in one respect. But this— This is not an exhaustive characterization. We must not forget how much of what is given, formal, accepted, and authoritative for teaching and practice is found in apostolic writings alongside the free expressions of the spirit.

So, in apostolic times, they possessed an unwritten tradition, an ecclesiastical doctrine, which centered on Christ. It provided the foundation for teaching and preaching, as well as for the pastoral leadership of the churches. Everyone knows that when we speak of Jewish traditions, they denote a certain complex of specific thoughts and prescriptions. Now, if we encounter similar terms in Christian scriptures, in a context that clearly points to firm traditions of doctrine and commandments, the inevitable conclusion is that the Church possessed not only an undefined common sers, but also a solid spiritual heritage. With regard to moral rules, hardly anyone would doubt this. And if so, then the same state of affairs existed with regard to “faith.”

The century following the apostles did not bring any significant changes in the norms of ecclesiastical religious consciousness. Then there is a firm Christian teaching.58 This is the “teaching of Christ” (χριστομαθι᾿ α), otherwise known as the “faith of Christ” or His “Gospel.” It is, as it were, the flesh of Christ, and next to it stands the “presbytery of the apostles.”59 This Gospel opposes false teachings, the dispute between which does not cease before the written Gospel. The use of the word “gospel” in the sense of the book of the Gospel is known, for example, to Ignatius, but primarily this word denotes Christian teaching in general; as in Διδαχή. In this very sense; the Church possesses the “apostolic ordinances,” or the “dogmas of the Lord and the apostles.”60

In this teaching, two parts are clearly outlined: λο᾿ γοι τής πι᾿ στεως and ε᾿ ντολαι᾿ διδαχης (theoretical and moral-practical), according to the expression of Barnabas.61 Thus, Ignatius deduces from the internal affirmation of the commandments and dogmas “life according to the flesh and spirit, according to faith and love, in the Son, in the Father and the Spirit, in the beginning and the end.”62 “I have known those who have evil doctrine, which ye suffer not to be sown among you, stopping your ears…, as stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, carried up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, by the rope of the Holy Spirit. Now your faith is your ascent (α᾿ ναγογεύς), love the way that leadeth to God. Be ye therefore companions (συ᾿ νοδοι), God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, saint-bearers, adorned in all things with the commandments of Jesus Christ”63. Particularly remarkable here is the comparison of the two trinities, the Divine and the moral—faith, hope, and love. Polycarp also knows the latter trinity as faithful64. What was taught in the hope of a pre-worldly, unearthly power and what was taught, experiencing this power in the spirit, could be concluded in The double trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit; faith, love, hope.

The New Testament writings were just beginning to gain general distribution and acceptance. All teaching was based on oral tradition, with its vagueness, sometimes reticence—and, most importantly, breadth. Along with the essential truths of doctrine, there was much that was irrelevant; there could be dubious and unworthy traditions (even the sayings of Christ and the apostles). Meanwhile, the criterion—Holy Scripture—was not open to public use. Already in New Testament 3, Christian life is guided, on the one hand, by the “spirit,” and on the other, by firm forms and norms. Even in later New Testament writings, a gravitation toward firm “commandments” is noticeable. The fact that the bearers of the “Spirit”—the apostles—contained His revelations in the firm form of scripture and themselves became authorities—led to less and less expectation of revelations from the Spirit. He lived within the previous revelations, and the new revelation had to be consistent with the authority of the revelation of Christ and the apostles.

In the first decades after the apostles, spiritual gifts were still powerfully active. Spirit-led wandering apostles and prophets were so common that deceivers often donned their masks. Besides the apostles, who carried out the mission, and the prophets, who proclaimed the truth, there were teachers, who guided a deeper understanding of the truth (according to Barnabas, a teacher teaches “that with your faith you may have perfect knowledge”).65 The shepherd of Hermas introduces us to the inspiration of the prophet of that time, and Barnabas is a type of teacher. In the proper sense, a prophet was the bearer of the Spirit—in him alone, the action of an unearthly power was clearly felt. Hermas, in spirit, soared over impassable spaces, had a series of visions, and barely achieved understanding of them. According to Hermas, a prophet, even one questioned, does not speak until the Spirit speaks within him and God wills it. Such inspiration sometimes appears even in natural speech: Ignatius says of himself: “And I cried out, when I spoke, with a great voice, the voice of God: hold fast to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons.”66 The prophets, as in v. 3, also performed symbolic actions.67 As long as the prophet is “in the spirit,” he is immune from criticism.68 At the Eucharist, the prophet says his own prayers.69

The Gnostics’ abuse of prophecy and their penchant for it led to a struggle against it and its weakening. The force that overcame it was, first of all, the incorporation of the New Testament sacred writings into the Old Testament canon, as has been noted. Particular importance was attached to the words of Christ (Papias), then to those of the apostles; in comparison with the apostles, even Ignatius the God-bearer feels like a poor servant. Gradually, the New Testament canon was defined by the four Gospels and the thirteen Epistles of Paul. The remaining books are still in doubt: for this reason, those subsequently excluded are included in the canon in places: Hermas, Barnabas, Diidachy, the Epistles of Clement, and others.

The diversity of concepts and expressions in this writing, which arose with exhortatory purposes, received explanations and application to life, as in the apostolic age, through church teaching, which offered simple thoughts and unambiguous formulas. The compilers of the canon presuppose such a firm measure of religious knowledge in their readers and therefore alone can impart to them “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” The gift of the Spirit elevated that church above the present, but no less so did the firm possession of religious knowledge. Not attempts at types of teaching, but a general and definite, faithful teaching constituted the enormous strength of the church of that time. For the monuments of that time, there is a firm Christian “teaching,” opposed to another, poor teaching; A written Gospel is more open to debate, but not this. This teaching is as practical as it is theoretical; it is the “way of life,” as opposed to the “way of death.” The firmness of this teaching contrasted with the vagueness of the Gnostics. Similarly, the Mishnah, for centuries, defined religion for the Jews without being written, serving as solid intellectual material for proselytism. But Christ, for the Christian neophyte, through inner experience, became far different from what the law was for the Jewish proselyte.72

All this leaves no doubt that, in the early days of Christianity, the fundamental truths of the faith were preserved in a strictly defined form, even in precise formulas, by church tradition. The latter was, so to speak, the tangible force in Christianity, the main nerve of its entire spiritual and ideological life. The full significance of this force, this figure, for contemporary Christian doctrine is recognized even by modern scholarship, which “is ready to believe that the preference shown by the apostolic fathers in the second century for oral tradition does not demonstrate the great authority that our Gospels supposedly enjoyed.”73 This significance was well recognized in that era, too.

For Clement of Rome, Christian tradition is rooted in the Old Testament. Against the Corinthian deniers, St. Clement of Rome defends the principle of hierarchy with, among other things, the following arguments: “This is not a new institution, for many centuries before, it was written about bishops and deacons,” and cites the Levitical priesthood and Isaiah 60:17 but LXX.74

For Ignatius the God-Bearer, tradition is Christ himself on earth. To those who spoke; “I will not believe it unless I find the Gospel in the antiquities (τοις άρχαι᾿ οις could be the Old Testament), St. Ignatius objects: “but for me the most ancient thing is Jesus Christ; truly ancient for me is His cross, His death and resurrection, and the faith given by Him.”75 The composition of this “faith” is shown by the following words of St. Ignatius: “Let us have recourse to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the Apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.”76 The Gospel here obviously means everything that is known about Christ and what He said, and the Apostles – everything that has come down from them; the first for St. Ignatius is the same as the living, earthly Christ, the second is the same as the teaching authority of the Church. According to Eusebius, Ignatius urged Christians to “hold fast to the apostolic traditions, which, for safety, he deemed necessary to confirm with his own testimony and to commit to writing” (the latter, in context, refers to the famous epistles of St. Ignatius). Thus, Ignatius the God-Bearer already recognized the inadequacy of the ideological preservation of dogma alone—in tradition.

For St. Polycarp, tradition is the guardian of truth. “Leaving vain and false teachings,” he exhorts Christians, “let us turn to the word handed down from the beginning” (Papias).

Papias draws attention to the vitality of tradition. He says of himself that he always conformed to those who “hold the commandments handed down from the Lord for faith and originating from the Lord Himself”… “for I believed that bookish knowledge would not be as beneficial to me as a living and constant voice” (Papias). Gnosticism and anti-Trinitarianism directed theological thought with particular force toward tradition, on the basis of which alone the struggle against new heresies was possible.

St. Irenaeus emphasizes the apostolic nature of tradition. According to him, the Church “teaches and transmits as if it had one mouth: for although there are different languages ​​in the world, the power of tradition is one and the same”80; “all who desire to see the truth can learn the tradition of the apostles in every church”81; “the apostles, like a rich man in a treasury, completely placed in the church everything that pertains to the truth”82. “If the apostles had not left us writings, should we not follow the order of the tradition handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches? This order is also followed by many barbarian tribes, who have their salvation without a charter or ink, written in their hearts by the Spirit… As a result of that ancient apostolic tradition, they do not even admit into their minds the monstrous speech of heretics.” Compared to the Jewish Christians, the faith of the pagans is “more noble (generosior), for they obeyed the word of God without being taught by the Scriptures.”83 “True knowledge (γνωσις) is the teaching of the apostles and the original constitution (συ᾿ στημα) of the Church throughout the world.”84 “The greater or lesser knowledge of some does not consist in changing the content itself, but in inventing another God, another Only-Begotten, and in carefully examining the meaning of what is said in the parables and agreeing with the content of the faith.”85

The lawyer Tertullian uses the fact of the existence of tradition in the church as proof of the truth of church teaching according to the legal principle of prescription (praescriptio). “It is impossible to think that heresy is older than doctrine.”86 “Who are you, when and where did you come from, what are you doing on my land, you who do not belong to me? By what right do you, Marcion, cut down my forest? By whose permission, Valentinus, do you divert my springs? I have owned this from ancient times, I was the first to take possession of it, I have a faithful deed of transfer from the founders to whom the property belonged, I am the heir of the apostles”87. The Gnostics are concerned with the problems of pagan religion; they develop the teachings of Plato and the Stoics. And “we have no need of curiosity [curiositate) after Christ Jesus, nor of investigation (inqnisitione) after the Gospel. Since we believe, we desire nothing more than faith”88. “To know nothing contrary to the rule of faith is to know everything”89. “Seek until you find; and when you have found, you must believe”90. Church positivism reaches its greatest development in Tertullian: credo, quod traditum est.91 Tertullian was the first to draw attention to the impossibility of correctly understanding Holy Scripture without tradition. “There is nothing in our teaching that is contrary to Holy Scripture. We are what Scripture is from its very beginning.”92

Clement of Alexandria also insists on this last idea: “Those who interpret the Scriptures contrary to Church tradition have lost the rule of truth.”93 But Clement deviates somewhat from the general patristic teaching on tradition by admitting a special secret tradition in the Church (παρα᾿ δοσις ή γνωστική),94 which Church teachers used when interpreting Holy Scripture. Scriptures, following the example of the Savior, who revealed to the apostles the special hidden meaning of Scripture,

According to Origen, “the object of faith should be only that truth which in no way diverges (discordat) from the apostles and church tradition”95, “We must not deviate from the original church tradition and believe (the scriptures) in any way other than what the churches of God have handed down to us in succession. Only the church does not take away either word or meaning from the brilliance of truth found in Scripture”96, Together with Clement, Origen allows for the highest “teacher”97 tradition: Origen characterized the Apostle Paul as “one who was deemed worthy to be a minister of the New Testament not by letter, but by spirit, who wrote not to all churches, and only to a few,” and the Apostle John, as one who, “leaving one gospel, confessed that it would be possible to write so many books that the world itself could not contain, and, having written the Apocalypse, received the order to remain silent and not write anything about the voices of the 7 thunders”98.

St. Cyprian of Carthage had to struggle with extremes in the veneration of tradition (regarding the question of the rebaptism of heretics, which, contrary to Cyprian, the Roman bishops did not want to allow, citing the ancient custom of their church). St. Cyprian agrees to follow only tradition “proceeding from the Lord’s and the Gospel authority or from the commands and epistles of the apostles,” he does not agree “to prefer human tradition to the Divine command, to follow custom without truth,” and refers to the Savior’s denunciation of the Pharisaic traditions.99 Similar thoughts are expressed by St. Cyprian regarding another issue—the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist with wine, and not with water, as the Encratites did.100 Here and there, the matter concerned ritual tradition that contradicted the spirit and even the letter (the second case) of St. Scripture, about “the traditions of men contrary to the Divine institution,” therefore the Protestant assertion that the first refutation of tradition came from Cyprian is unjust; on the second issue, he himself refers to “the rule of the Gospel truth and the Lord’s traditions.”101

Notes:

37 1 Cor. 12:3

38 1 Cor. 2:4: “My speech and my preaching were not with words stumbling block to human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”; 1 Thessalonians 1:5: “Our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit”; Ephesians 6:17: “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

39 John 14:18 et seq. 16:8–11 et seq.

40 1 Cor. 12:29: “All the apostles have eaten”; Eph. 4:11: “He gave these apostles.”

41 The election of Matthias; Heb. 2:3: “salvation… was made known to those who heard in us.”

42 Gal. 1:1: “Paul, an apostle, was not of men.” 1 Cor. 9:1: “Are we an apostle?” 15:7: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle?” 2 Cor. 11:5: “for I know nothing of those who went before me as apostles.”

431 Cor. 11:23: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, even as the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed”… 15:3: “For I delivered to you of the first time what I also received”; 1 Cor. 11:2: “But I praise you, brethren, “For you remember all that is mine”; 2 Thessalonians. 3:6: “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you separate yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which they received from us.”

44 Matthew 28:19: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Luke 24:49: “Behold, I send the promise of the Father… you will be clothed with power from on high.” 2 Corinthians 13:13: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 1:21: “who confirms us with you in Christ.” 1 Corinthians 12:4: “the divisions are gifts.” 6:11: “But you were washed, then you were sanctified, then you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of your God”; Rom. 13:16, “That I might be a minister of Jesus Christ, ministering the gospel of God among the Gentiles, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Spirit”; v. 30: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, cooperate with me in your prayers to God for me”; Eph. 2:21-22: “In whom every thing that is built together grows into the church: holy in the Lord, in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God by the Spirit”: 4:3-6: “one body, one Spirit” .. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; “God chose you from the beginning for salvation through holiness of the Spirit and faith of the truth, to which he called you by your gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Peter 1:2: “elect by the sight of God the Father, for holiness of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”; 4:14: “if you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you.” Jude 21: “Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” A number of passages in the farewell homily about the Spirit-Comforter (cf. Rev. 1:4-5; 3:12). Simon Magus also assumed the Trinity when he claimed to be the Messiah and Helen to be his Thought (ἕiiioa); he associated this view with naive modalism.

45 Phil. 4:9; Gal. 5:19-23, etc.

461 Cor. 4:17.

47 Heb. 6:1-2.

482 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2.

491 Tim. 6:1-2.

50 Jude 3, etc.

511 Peter 1:22 and etc.

52Rom. 6:17, etc.

53Rom. 2:16, etc.

542Tim. 1:18

551Tim. 4:6

561Tim. 4:6, etc.

57Barnabas, Epistle 16:9

58Diδ 2:1; Ignatius, Eph. 9:1

59Ignatius, Philadelphus 5:1

60Ignatius, thral. 7:1; Mag. 13:1

61Barnabas, Epistle 16:9

Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. Preservation of Dogma in the Church // Works of the Kyiv Spiritual Academies. 1910. No. 9. P. 17-78.