APOSTOLIC MEMORY LEVERAGED:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF APOSTOLIC IDENTIFICATION
FOR PURPOSES OF THEOLOGICAL VALIDATION
IN THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH
by
D. WILLIAM SPRINGER

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Master of Theological Studies, Church History Stream

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

...............................................................................
Dr. Bruce Guenther, Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor

................................................................................
Dr. Archie Spencer, Th.D.; Second Reader

................................................................................
Dr. Craig Allert, Ph.D.; External Examiner

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY
30 April 3014
© D. William Springer

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines apostolic memory and the manner in which these memories
were leveraged in the early church. Chapter One provides a summary of the apostolic
portrait in the New Testament and charts all references to the twelve among the apostolic
fathers, through to Justin and Hegesippus. These writers reveal a view of the apostles
distinguished primarily for their honoured role as Christ’s messengers. Chapter Two
demonstrates how Irenaeus utilized apostolic memory in such a way that led to an allencompassing apostolic identity for the church. This development is compared with
Tertullian’s ideas, and the comparison reveals a marked difference in emphasis and
strategy. In contrast to Irenaeus, Tertullian minimized apostolic referencing and
identification, and instead utilized language more dependent on Christocentric identity.
These differences are explained in Chapter Three, which argues that the key point of
differentiation was the writers’ perspectives on the apostles’ empowerment by the Holy
Spirit.

Dedicated to my beloved wife Maxine,
with thanks for a decade of patience.

i

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER ONE. APOSTOLIC HISTORY
The Apostolic Ministry in the New Testament

6

Portrait of the Apostle after the New Testament

14

Post-Apostolic Fathers: Justin and Hegesippus

27

CHAPTER TWO. APOSTOLIC IDENTITY
The Heresiologists Embrace the List

37

Irenaeus and Apostolic Identity

41

Tertullian’s Refined Apostolicity

49

CHAPTER THREE. ANALYSIS OF TERTULLIAN’S DEPARTURE
Apostolic Empowerment: The Relationship of the Spirit to the Apostles

59

Irenaeus’ Empowered Authorities

60

Tertullian’s Empowered Messengers

65

The Relationship of Apostolic Memory to the Formation
of an Apostolic Identity

72

CONCLUSION

74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

76

ii

INTRODUCTION
The Creed of Nicaea (325 CE) is comprised of seven articles and concludes with
a warning that any who opposed the council’s decisions and doctrinal formulations were
to be punished with anathematization by the “catholic and apostolic church.” At the next
ecumenical council, the first at Constantinople (381), the creed was slightly modified.
The revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed dropped the concluding anathemas, but
incorporated the declaration and belief in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”
to be one of the twelve articles of faith.1 This creedal development reveals what had
become one of the key theological issues in the fourth-century church, namely a more
pronounced emphasis on and leveraging of its apostolic origins and authority.
As John Burkhard points out, most Christians confess the Nicene
Constantinopolitan creed “yet it is not entirely clear what claim we are making about the
church when we say it is apostolic.”2 In the Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity, Ola
Tjorhom states that “‘Apostolicity’ denotes the continuity of the whole church with the
apostles’ witness to Christ.”3 While all branches of Christianity embrace the apostles as
the connecting link between Christ and the church, two points of disagreement between
those branches emerge regarding apostolicity. The first concerns the manner in which the
continuity was preserved, obtained, passed on, and how an apostolic identity was
subsequently recognized. The second point questions the degree of importance that
continuity with the apostles might have for the post-apostolic church. Roman Catholic
1

For a study of the use of “apostolicity” in the creeds, see Jared Wicks, “Ecclesial Apostolicity
Confessed in the Creed,” Pro Ecclesia 9 (2000): 150-64.
2
John J. Burkhard, Apostolicity Then and Now: An Ecumenical Church in a Postmodern World
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004), 24.
3
Ola Tjorhom, “Apostolicity and Apostolic Succession,” in The Cambridge Dictionary of
Christianity, ed. Daniel Patte (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 64-65.

1

scholar Yves Congar highlights these tensions, noting that, “The tradition of the church ...
is always considered as having its source with the apostles.” And, “to state that the source
of what the church hands on is apostolic is to say that it is heavenly and divine.”4 The
degree to which the relationship of the apostles to the divine is emphasized directly
affects the formulation of and emphasis on apostolicity.
This thesis examines the earliest of the apostolic memories, charting the
references to the twelve5 among the earliest Christian writers. The study begins with a
brief summary of the New Testament portrait of the apostolic ministry, but the primary
area of interest is the references to the apostles in the writings of the second century. All
citations of the apostles and references to the “apostolic” are examined from the time of
the apostolic fathers until the two formative documents on early apostolicity: Irenaeus’
Against Heresies (ca. 180) and Tertullian’s The Prescription Against Heretics (ca. 200).
This thesis will demonstrate the second-century church’s development of thought
and varied utilization of apostolic memory. Apostolicity was not an expression used in
the first generations of the church, nor were there shifts in the basic understanding of
what the apostles’ historical role had been. Indeed, the central place of the church’s
apostolic origin and authority is presupposed by the fathers of the second century. The
developments explored in this study relate to the variations in emphasis and interpretation
of what it meant for the church to be in continuity with the apostles, and the degree to
which these emphases were leveraged by the individual fathers. From the New Testament
through to Irenaeus, references to the apostles, and the leveraging of their memory and
4

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, translated [from
the French] by Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 24, 25.
5
I will reference “the twelve” as an interchangeable term for “apostles,” recognizing that at one
time there were only eleven, and then with Paul, there were thirteen.

2

authority, follows a generally upward progression; that is to say, they are mentioned more
frequently as time passes. This progression follows a basic trajectory: it moves from
historical narrative, to emerging, but varied memory-leveraging, to an all-encompassing
identity for the church and all its beliefs and practices. This ascending trend of apostolic
referencing takes a different turn in Tertullian. Though the presupposition of apostolic
authority remains solidly intact, the North African writer’s apologetic strategy departs
somewhat from Irenaeus. His references to the twelve are reduced; he does not champion
the same all-encompassing apostolic identity as put forth by Irenaeus, but instead puts
forward a revised, more explicitly Christo-centric identification for the church and its
faith and practices.
Chapter One outlines the earliest portrait of the apostles and their responsibilities.
In the New Testament, the apostles were central characters. They were nearly always
either a key part of the narrative, or the ones authoring the document. The mention and
memory of the twelve focussed on their part in the story and their role in the recording
and passing on of Jesus’ teaching. The nature of these early apostolic memories are
primarily historical in nature; the references contribute to the narrative itself, rather than
attempt to leverage continuity or identification as becomes the case later in the second
century. Among the apostolic fathers and early apologists, references to the twelve
generally followed the pattern seen in the New Testament. The apostles continued to be
mentioned most often as they related to their role in the story, that being their
intermediary role in the transmission of the gospel. Though the importance of that role
remained undisputed, other issues related to apostolic memory prove more difficult to
generalize. Sometimes the twelve were revered; frequently they were not mentioned at

3

all. It is with Irenaeus where apostolic history and memory transitioned to a more
pronounced apostolic identity for the Church. This was a development that not only
looked back at the roles and contributions of the apostles, but also emphasized the
apostolic character of the church with greater intentionality. This emphasis amplified as
essential, the apostolicity of the Christian institution, tradition, and leaders in a way that
had not previously been articulated.
Chapter Two focuses on the emergence of apostolic identity, with specific
attention given to the thought of Irenaeus and Tertullian. The ideas and language in
Against Heresies are the defining contribution to second-century apostolicity. Indeed,
Irenaeus’ work is primary, both in volume, but especially in influence. The scope of this
study will not be extended beyond the second century. As a result, the chapter is
principally concerned with examining Tertullian’s reception and adaption of Irenaeus’
apostolic emphases. I show that The Prescription Against Heretics demonstrates a
significantly reduced leveraging of the apostolic memory, and a more subdued, nuanced
identification of the Church as apostolic.
Moreover, in Chapter Three, Tertullian’s departure from Irenaeus is traced back
to an underlying theological issue, a point of distinction that emerged out of differing
perspectives on the original apostolic ministry. At issue is the difference in interpretation
concerning the nature of the divine empowerment of the twelve apostles for the fulfilling
of their ministry.
The principle sources utilized for this thesis are the writings of the second-century
church fathers up to Tertullian. Secondary literature is, for the most part, limited to
studies of closely related subject matter; studies centered on early church tradition,

4

episcopal succession, heresiology, the formation of the New Testament canon, and the
rule of faith. Research on the development of the church’s apostolic memories – and the
manner in which those memories were leveraged – is a neglected field. I therefore
consider the subject matter of this thesis a study of some value, particularly as it relates to
Tertullian’s reception and adaption of Irenaeus’ ideas.
The implications of this research have potential benefit both for early church
studies and for today’s evangelical church. Recognition of the evolution of apostolic
memory provides insight into the theological developments of the third and fourthcentury church, particularly as it occurred in the western part of the Roman empire. The
twenty-first century church shares some of the challenges faced by the early church,
challenges that contributed to the emergence of apostolicity as a key theological concept.
Tertullian’s measured approach to that issue could prove beneficial to contemporary
evangelical Protestantism, particularly in response to the recent attempts to question the
legitimacy and historicity of evangelical Protestant theology.6

6

Note for example the recent works that presented alternative apostolic teachings. See the
numerous works of Bart Ehrman at the scholarly level, or the recent novels of Dan Brown at the popular.
See Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), and Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003).

5

CHAPTER ONE: APOSTOLIC HISTORY
To speak of the apostolic is to reference a connection or continuity with Jesus’
apostles. This first chapter therefore begins with a brief overview of the biblical
presentation of the apostle. This includes a summary both of what Jesus taught the twelve
about their role, and how the rest of the New Testament reflected on them and their
ministry. Such reflections extend into the next generation, as both the apostolic fathers
and early apologists are examined for their perspective on, and allusions to, the apostolic
ministry. The aim of this chapter is to provide a clear picture of how continuity with the
twelve was understood prior to Irenaeus. The portrait that emerges is one that sees the
church’s apostolic memory primarily concerned with historical narrative. The key issues
of continuity are concerned with what the apostles did, that is, the role they played in
God’s divine plan. At this stage of history, the presupposed acceptance of the apostles
teaching and authority had not yet translated to a self-described apostolic identity.

The Apostolic Ministry: The New Testament Witness
Jesus’ Pre-Crucifixion Teaching Concerning His Disciples’ Ministry
The New Testament gospels record few examples of Jesus teaching the twelve
specifics about how to be apostles. There are also very few details provided them
concerning their future roles and responsibilities. His initial invitation was vague, “I will
make you fishers of men,”7 and his instructions remained largely undeveloped throughout
his time with them. Their “commissioning” as apostles legitimized their anointing and
authority, but added little instruction beyond what they had already observed from Jesus’
7

Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17 NASB. This summoning of the first disciples is only briefly described,
but the seriousness of the invitation is apparent. They likely did not understand fully the nature of this
calling, but they nevertheless responded.

6

own ministry. Mark records that “He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him
and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons.”
(Mark 3:14f) Each of the synoptic gospels records this commissioning of the twelve but
provides little else in the way of apostolic ministerial instruction. When Jesus sent them
out two-by-two he reminded them of their roles as preachers and healers, yet he did not
elaborate on what that meant.8 In fact, Jesus had more to say about where not to go and
what not to take than what practical steps his novice teachers should take to fulfill their
mandates.9
The Gospel of John repeats none of the incidents included in the synoptic gospels.
In fact, John is unique among the gospels in that the term “apostle” does not appear a
single time. The favoured expression is the more generic “his disciples.” This is used
interchangeably for both the apostles as well as the larger group of followers. There are
four solitary references to “the twelve,” but these prove unhelpful to the discussion of
apostolicity.10 Rather than provide any insight into the apostles’ unique ministry, the texts
reveal a rather dubious usage of the term; it is used in two instances that highlight
weakness of faith among the group, followed by words of rebuke from Jesus.

8

Matthew 10:1-14; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6. Luke provides the additional account of the sending
of the seventy-two, but again there is little specificity about the nature of the apostolic calling. See Luke
10:1-12.
9
Matthew and Luke also include mention of their heavenly role of judging Israel’s tribes, “I tell
you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have
followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28, and Luke
22:28ff) Though the statement further reveals the importance of their roles it again fails to provide practical
counsel for present and near-future responsibilities.
10
John’s four instances of using “The twelve” occur in two places: 1) “You do not want to leave
too, do you?” Jesus asked the twelve. . . . Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one
of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the twelve, was later to
betray him.)” John 6:67, 70ff. 2) “Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the twelve, was not with the
disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them,
"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his
side, I will not believe it.” John 20:24f.

7

The four gospels reveal that during his own ministry, Jesus’ pedagogical method
relied primarily on modelling the new kingdom work while providing his pupils with
only basic supplementary instruction.11 Prior to his crucifixion, the apostolic ministry was
shaped by observing what Jesus himself did and by hearing from him that they too would
preach and heal.
The Gospel of John’s “Counsellor” Promises
The testimony of John’s Gospel concerning the tasks of an apostle is scant, yet it
provides great insights as to their future empowerment. Though not explicitly stated, the
context of chapters thirteen through seventeen were words of promise for the apostles.
Here Jesus told them that despite his departure they would continue with what he had
been doing. In fact, Jesus promises they would do even “greater things” (14:12).
Greater things were possible, Jesus explained, because he would send the
“counsellor” to assist them. Jesus revealed that the ministry of the Holy Spirit had a
twofold purpose: on the one hand, the counsellor would come to teach and “remind
them” of what they had been previously taught by Jesus (14:25f). The Spirit was to
“guide [them] into all truth,” revealing the will and glory of the Father (16:13f); on the
other hand, the Counsellor had a ministry independent of the apostles. The Spirit itself
was described as one who testified to the truth (15:26) and engages in a ministry of
conviction: “he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and
judgment…” (16:8). These two roles demonstrate that the Spirit’s role is predominantly
11

It is here assumed that the New Testament provides a sufficiently reliable glimpse into Jesus’
training of his disciples. Among the more revealing texts related to this is from John 16. Here, in the last
days of Jesus’ time with the disciples, do they admit that they have not understood much of what he had
been teaching them. “… now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. Now we know
that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came
from God” (John 16:29f.).

8

instructional, both for the apostles and for any who follow. Though these verses
emphasized the forthcoming Spirit, Jesus helped his apprentices understand how they
would move forward without him. They could continue with God’s work because God’s
spirit was to be their companion and guide.
Post-Resurrection Instructions
As with John’s emphasis on the Spirit, all four gospels’ post-resurrection
narratives provided more direction for the emerging apostolic ministry. Each of the four
contains some form of the explanatory “Great Commission” as found in The Gospel of
Matthew. In this Gospel, Jesus uttered the clearest words of instruction regarding what
was expected from the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
age.” 12 They had previously been told to preach and heal, with no particular expectations
given regarding their success.13 Now, however, Jesus sent them again and declared that
they were to do more than just teach; the task was to multiply themselves throughout the
entire earth. The apostolic charge required taking leadership over the continued
expansion of Jesus’ work.

12

Matthew 28:18ff. See also Mark 16:15, Luke 24:48, John 20:21. Matthew’s version is the
lengthiest of the group and the other three do not share the emphasis on baptism or individual training for
obedience. The Lucan reference is perhaps a dubious inclusion as it mentions only that they are witnesses.
It is in Acts 1:8 that he (Luke) provides what is more properly analogous to the other passages.
13
As mentioned above, when the twelve, and later, the seventy-two, were sent they were promised
only an anointing of authority. The only other assurances related to the obstacles to be faced: that they
would potentially be unwelcomed, unwanted, betrayed, and persecuted. See Matthew 10:1-23. Cf. Mark
6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-12.

9

The Acts of the Apostles
It could be argued that Jesus’ clearest word of command concerning the apostles’
future came when he ordered them to do nothing. In the opening paragraph of The Acts
of the Apostles, the group is instructed to go to the city and sit idle until they received
“what the Father had promised,” that is, the gift of being “baptized with the Holy
Spirit.”14 The arrival and activity of this aforementioned counsellor reinforced the
sharpened clarity to the apostles’ ministry; the arrival of the Spirit supernaturally enabled
the group to be able to speak and teach in different languages.
The initial descent of the Spirit is described in a visually dramatic way (tongues of
fire and a mighty wind), but the primary focus was upon the apostles themselves. Rather
than elaborate upon the remarkable spiritual manifestation, the narrative’s focal point was
fixed upon the twelve’s empowered behaviour. Acts focusses on the astonished people
who suddenly understood the new preaching in their own mother tongue.15 This account
climaxed with a powerful speech from the newly emboldened Peter and set the tone for
future episodes. The immediate aftermath of the Spirit’s reception was a newfound zeal
and opportunity for preaching.16 Indeed, throughout the rest of Acts specific references to

14

Acts 1:4ff. “Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait
for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water,
but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
15
Acts 2:2. While the description of the Spirit falling “like tongues as of fire” resting on “each of
them” with an accompanying “violent rushing wind” would seem to be a focal point of the narrative, its
prominence in the larger story is not significant. Throughout the rest of Acts an observable presence of the
Holy Spirit is often described as being the identifying mark of faith but with no further mention of violent
winds or fiery tongues.
16
See Peter’s three bold, Spirit-filled messages in the chapters immediately following Pentecost.
Acts 2:14-41, 3:12-26, 4:8-12.

10

a Spirit-filled apostle are most commonly associated with evangelistic sermons or
speeches.17
While Acts describes other areas of involvement by the Spirit, its most frequently
cited purpose is for assisting them with preaching. The apostles’ empowerment was
assumed to be at work in other ways, particularly through miracles, but the dominant
tendency in Acts is to mention the Spirit in concurrence with their speaking ministries.18
This emphasis persists throughout the book, even when the twelve hand off their
administrative duties in chapter six. There their purpose is clear; they must devote
themselves to the “word and to prayer.” This is the apostolic ministry.
Apostolic Reputation after Pentecost
It is a difficult task to formulate a clear picture of the apostles in the postPentecost, New Testament church. There are several reasons for this. First, there are not
many apostolic references with which to work. Apart from Peter and occasionally John,
there are virtually no references to any of the others originally appointed by Jesus. In the
early part of Acts, there are a few episodes that referenced the teaching or miracles of the
collective group. These diminished, however, as the narrative turned to Paul.
Second, the membership of the apostolic office evolved. In the beginning, there
were those who had been chosen by Jesus. With the departure of Judas Iscariot, the
remaining eleven added a new twelfth member. This process informs their initial
qualifications for membership, with Peter stating, “it is necessary to choose one of the

17

See Acts 4:8, 4:31, 7:55, 13:9.
Notice in Acts 4:29ff the persecuted apostles asking for themselves only the boldness for
speaking and the request that “He work powerfully” through signs and wonders. It is also significant to note
that when describing the various miracles there is rarely specific mention of the Spirit’s presence (5:12-16).
See in particular Paul’s resurrecting of Eutychus (20:7-12).
18

11

men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of
these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21f). Though there were
at least two qualified individuals, the fact that only one was selected suggests the initial
belief that the apostolic circle closed at twelve.
Matters changed, however, with Paul’s arrival. His conversion and calling were
not anticipated by the nascent church, and his authority and legitimacy as an apostle had
to be answered throughout his life.19 His legitimization as an apostle altered the
previously closed apostolic circle. In fact, later in Acts, Paul and Barnabas both are
referred to as apostles (Acts 14:14), while Paul in his letters implied the circle had
widened even further.20
A third reason why it is difficult to capture a precise understanding of the
apostolic office lies in the fact that the influence of the original twelve diminished over
time. This is evident not only by the substantial decrease in references to the twelve, but
also in the emergence of others in their place. Paul’s arrival is one example of this, but
there was also a group of other “elders” who began to appear in positions of governance
and oversight.21 No longer are Jesus’ original leaders the only authorities. The close
association of these elders’ roles with the roles of the twelve serves to obscure any
simple, generalizing parameters of understanding for the apostolic office. The emergence

19

See Galatians 1, 1 Corinthians 9.
“Greet Andronicus and Junias ... They are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7). He
also reports on the emergence of false apostles in 2 Corinthians 11:13. Revelation 2:2 confirms the reality
of pseudo-apostles in the church.
21
These Elders appear for the first time in chapter 11 (v.30). Their most prominent role comes
during the circumcision controversy from chapter 15. Alongside the apostles they oversee the debate and
have their names included as the authorities behind the official letter that was to be circulated among the
churches (15:23-29).
20

12

of additional authorities and influencers in the early church would be expected, but
insight into the apostolic office is confused by a lack of information describing what the
apostles’ themselves were doing in the meantime. It may be that the twelve settled into
the simple ministry of word and prayer, or perhaps the legends are true and they had
indeed scattered around the world.22 Regardless, it is difficult to construct an early
apostolicity when the apostles themselves were fading to the background.
Paul’s questionable opinion of the twelve presents the fourth and final reason the
portrait of the apostles is unclear. Though subtle, his dealings with and references to the
twelve are not always complimentary. In his letter to the Galatians he recounted his
rebuke of Peter. Paul forthrightly declared that the apostle was “in the wrong,” engaged
in “hypocrisy,” not “acting in line with the truth of the gospel,” and it resulted in leading
others “astray” (Gal. 2:11-14). This incident is significant if for no other reason than that
it is a less than complimentary portrait given of a post-Pentecost apostle. Combined with
his evocative comment that James, Peter, and John would “seem to be” the pillars of the
Jerusalem church, it is clear that Paul himself is not concerned with romanticizing their
reputation (Gal. 2:9).
Conclusion: The Portrait of the Apostle in the New Testament
The reader of the New Testament witnesses a significant transformation in the
lives of the apostolic leaders. They began as unschooled fishermen and social outcasts
and became powerful preachers, authors, and leaders of a spiritual community. Despite
this, the group were not heroically romanticized in the scripture. In the gospels, they were

22

There are, for example, the legends of Thomas’ evangelization of India, or Bartholemew’s of
Armenia. See Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, 2nd rev. and corrected ed.
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998), 25-39.

13

often ignorant, brash, and ultimately; their abandonment of Jesus is well documented.
Moreover, both Acts and Paul’s letters provide sufficient material to suggest a waning of
the twelves’ influence. Though descriptions of the apostolic duties are sometimes vague,
a general picture of their role does materialize. The twelve, and later Paul, were men who
had been instructed and anointed by Jesus for the purpose of carrying on his work. They
were not perfect men, nor would they become perfect leaders. Their most important role
was to be the source of knowledge and continuity between Jesus and the emerging faith
community.

Portrait of the Apostle after the New Testament
In his essay on apostolic memory, Francois Bovon argues that “there was a
natural and distinct tendency to memorialize the first Christian generation, the generation
of the apostles and witnesses …”23 He suggests four historical reasons for this tendency,24
and adds a fifth
… theological [reason], perhaps an all-encompassing one: as long as the
Christians of antiquity tried to preserve the historicity of the revelation and the
very real incarnation of their Lord, they could not avoid emphasizing the
historical and human face of the communication of the gospel, that is to say, the
actual value of the apostles themselves, including both their voices and their role
as intermediaries.25
The very idea of apostolicity draws from and assumes a level of significance and inherent
authority in the twelve. Tjorhom’s previously noted definition26 stressed the importance

23

Francois Bovon, “The Apostlic Memories in Ancient Christianity,” in Studies in Early
Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1.
24
His four reasons: 1.) To create an “ethical model” for the church; 2.) “To follow the command
of love and develop the Christian notion of communion: to love is to remember;” 3.) For the defense “of
truth and the preservation of holy doctrine;” 4.) “The authority of Christian ministry, the apostolic origin of
the most important Episcopal seats.” Bovon, “Memories,” 1,2.
25
Bovon, “Memories,” 2.
26
Tjorhom, “Apostolicity,” 64.

14

of continuity with them, but Bovon pushes the idea further. He argues there was an
emphasis on “the actual value of the apostles themselves.” Therefore, the manner in
which they are remembered (or memorialized) will be the determining factor in defining
the scope and meaning of the apostolic ideal that later became so significant in the
theology of the church. Because the New Testament provides a rather indistinct portrait
of the apostolic role, the writings of the early fathers are of great importance. In the
section that follows, Bovon’s presupposition is put to the test against the relevant texts
from the aposotlic fathers. Whereas the writers and historians of the third and fourth
centuries may indeed have tended towards apostolic memorialization, there is little of it
in the century that preceded them.
Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers
Effective historians and journalists ideally seek to have their research rooted as
near the source of events as possible.27 Amidst the library of Christian writings, the
apostolic fathers are nearest to the New Testament writings. They are known thus
because it came to be accepted that “each writing in the collection had come from an
early Christian author who knew one or more of the first-century apostles… or who at
least had received instruction from the disciples of the apostles.”28 Though any direct
connection between some of the writings and the apostles is unlikely “there is little

27

“In order to find the truth, we have to get as close to the source as possible. The farther we get
from the source, the more likely it is that the truth has been twisted through manipulation or error, a process
gleefully reproduced in the child's game of telephone.” Chris Hayes, Twilight of the Elites: America after
Meritocracy (New York: Random House, 2012), 114.
28
Clayton N. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Baker
Academic, 1996), 1. Jefford suggests the “apostolic Father” moniker may have begun with the seventeenthcentury French scholar J.B. Cotelier. He “used the Latin phrase patres aevi apostolici (or in English
translation, “fathers of the apostolic period”) as part of the title for his two-volume work on these early
Christian writings.” Jefford, Apostolic Fathers, 1.

15

question that the collection includes several texts that are as old as the writings of the
New Testament itself.”29
It is their historical proximity that makes these early documents an invaluable
source in the study of apostolicity. This section of the thesis will highlight and summarize
the notable references concerning the twelve by the apostolic fathers.
1 Clement
Clement of Rome’s epistle to the church at Corinth (ca.90-100)30 is an invaluable
source concerning the development of apostolicity. Though direct references to the
apostles are relatively few, its relevancy is considerable for two reasons: its close
proximity to the New Testament era, and its highly relevant subject matter.31 Not only is
1 Clement among the earliest post-apostolic literature, but its teachings and the authority
it seeks to exercise also closely resemble leadership practices observed in the New
Testament, particularly in the Pauline letters.32
The Corinthians’ dismissal of their ministry leaders greatly concerned the church
at Rome and inspired the sending of Clement’s epistle. The dismissal was believed to be
an act of “pride and sedition” by leaders of a “detestable emulation.”33 Troubled by the
disposal of their Corinthian counterparts, the Roman elders issued the letter in an effort to
29

Jefford, Apostolic Fathers, 1.
A helpful graph illustrating the possible and probable dates for the documents is found in
Jefford, Apostolic Fathers, 4.
31
Since J.B. Lightfoot, 1 Clement has nearly always been accepted as a late first-century
document. One recent work suggests its composition may have been earlier (see Thomas J. Herron,
Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians
[Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2008].
32
Ignatius’ epistles are also early and greatly concerned with the leadership of the church, but they
are nevertheless a generation later and do not attempt to wield the kind of “apostolic” authority as is seen
with 1 Clement. Ignatius speaks on issues of authority with great force, but he does not specifically
intervene in the life of another congregation as do the Roman elders in Clement’s company.
33
1 Clement 14. Unless otherwise noted, quotations from the fathers are from Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus. American ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).
30

16

rebuke the sinners and reverse the sin. That is to say, they intervened in the affairs of
another congregation. This remarkable event represents the first known attempt in church
history in which one group of leaders attempted to wield an influence similar to the
twelve and their elders in the New Testament.34 In these early days of the post-apostolic
community, it is doubtful there had been significant conceptual development for a transcongregational, centralized church leadership. It is reasonable to assume that the apostles
themselves functioned as general overseers of the churches, but apart from the
establishment of appointed elders there is little evidence of a strategic plan for a transition
of that leadership.35
Clement’s response was straightforward: the leadership change in the Corinthian
church was wrong and needed quickly to be reversed. Clement’s apostolic focus emerges
as his letter attempted to justify this position. The rational given, and a key theme
throughout 1 Clement lies in the divine order of God.
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 their orders… 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 should afterwards believe.36
The apostles’ authority is a significant part of Clement’s argument, which represents an
early development in the idea of episcopal succession, primitive as it may be. It is

34

See Acts 21:17-26.
Von Campenhausen questions the evidence of a significant apostolic leadership, stating that “the
conception which, thanks to Luke, became the dominant one, namely that the twelve were the real leaders
and governors of the primitive community, is untenable.” Hans Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical
Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1997). For a detailed study of the emergence and transition of the apostolic office see the entire second
chapter.
36
Clement, 42.
35

17

evident, however, that his central focus was not on the apostles themselves, but on the
over-arching, divine economy, the “order” of God. His plea to the Corinthians did include
the request to submit to those whom the apostles had appointed. This request is made not
because of a concern for apostolicity, but out of a larger focus on the divine economy.
His main thesis is that there is a divine plan for ecclesiastical governorship and the plan
must therefore not be violated. Out of that concern emerged the order to obey those
chosen by the twelve “or afterwards by other eminent men.”37 After spending nearly twothirds of the letter stressing the themes of obedience, unity, and division, Clement
suddenly, and with great force, delivers his central point: “it behoves us to do all things in
[their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.”38
Since the leadership of the church is an appointment of God’s ordered will, the ministers
“cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”39 Clement thus demonstrates that the
content of the apostolic teaching could be trusted (since it had come direct through Christ
to the elders). This historicity of the tradition did not condemn the Corinthians. Rather,
their decision to break God’s plan led them into trouble.
Throughout the letter Clement demonstrated his admiration for the apostles. They
were the “spiritual heroes…the noble examples…the illustrious apostles.”40 They were
important, for they delivered the divine message entrusted to them by Christ himself.
They were without equal because of their proximity to the Lord and their appointed
relationship to the church. As important as they may have been, however, the extent of
their role was limited; they were ambassadors, stewards of the divine truths God
37

Clement, 44.
Clement, 40.
39
Clement, 44.
40
Clement, 5.
38

18

delivered to them through Jesus. The epistle did not waver in the belief that God himself
was the locus of authority. He had ordered all things. The gospel is his.41 His Spirit has
inspired all those connected with his plans.42 Clement admired the twelve and understood
the crucial role they played. On the matter of where true authority resides, however, there
could be no question that Clement placed it firmly in God’s domain.
In Clement’s letter to the Corinthians there was a clear model of succession for
ecclesiastical authority. Clement is among the earliest of the apostolic fathers and he gave
a prominent role to the apostles in the divine economy for the church. In subsequent
years, however, there was a marked difference in the writings of those who followed. The
rest of the apostolic fathers actually spoke very little of the original twelve. While they
are mentioned on occasion, it is rarely more than a passing reference. Clement and his
elders in Rome wrote an epistle that resembled an apostolic treatise, and though there was
an appeal in that letter to a form of apostolicity, there is virtually none of this in the rest
of the apostolic fathers.
The Didache
Extant manuscripts of The Didache (ca. 90-115) reveal the document’s full title as
The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles. Typically dated in the early
part of the second century, a treatise of this antiquity and with its apostolic title suggests
great potential for the purposes of this study.43 Though helpful with regard to what the

41

“Content with the provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words,
you were inwardly filled with His doctrine,… a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon you all.… The
commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written upon the tablets of your hearts.” 1 Clement, 2.
42
See chapters 42, 44, and 47.
43
For information on the title and dating see Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation,
Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004); Thomas O'Loughlin, The Didache:
A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010). For an alternate theory,
see John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976). Robinson’s position is

19

apostles were said to have taught, there is little within the treatise to contribute to an
understanding or leveraging of the memory of the men themselves. In fact, the study of
the apostolic leaders is complicated by The Didache in two ways. First, as already stated,
the twelve are not mentioned a single time. This might be surprising not only because of
the title, but more so considering the fact that issues of orthodox teaching, heresy,
ecclesiastical protocol, and leadership continuity are all discussed. A century later these
points of discussion would almost certainly have drawn reference to the apostles, but not
so in The Didache. Second, though the letter does not mention the original apostles, it
does reference other apostles that had been active in that era (the early second century).
The command is given that, in the church: “Let every apostle who comes to you be
received as the Lord.”44 The implications of this are potentially significant. With no
mention of the original apostles, but an elevated reverence for a second-generation
apostle, the implication is of an apostolicity of an entirely different kind. Here there was
no emphasis on a historic continuity or legacy from the twelve, but instead, there was a
continuation of a role, an office of authority.
One of the primary issues that caused the emergence of apostolic discussions was
the questioning of tradition or the debate over true teaching. Whereas heterodox teaching
was not an issue in 1 Clement, The Didache stressed the critical role the teaching played
in the community. Though The Didache commanded that one must accept an apostle as
one would receive the Lord, it also admonished that “afterwards you shall examine him
and know his character, for you have knowledge both of good and evil…” (12.1). The
that the treatise emerged very early, dating it within the apostolic generation, ca. 40-60. Were this the case
it would significantly alter its relevancy for apostolic studies. This position, however, is not shared by the
majority of scholars.
44
The Didache, 11.2

20

evaluation of teacher, prophet and apostle is a rather straightforward matter: “by their
dispositions they therefore shall be known…” (11.8). Clement referenced the apostles as
the preachers of the gospel, those to whom the Lord entrusted his message. In The
Didache, however, no such apostolic references occurred. On the contrary, the treatise is
content to associate the true teaching solely with the Lord, with no connection made to
the twelve whatsoever. The relevant passages include references to “the teaching of the
Lord” (4.1), “the commandments of the Lord” (4.13), “the whole yoke of the Lord” (6.2),
that which “the Lord commanded in his gospel” (8.2), and lastly, there is the “knowledge
of the Lord” (11.2). The truth, the gospel tradition, and doctrine are seen to have emerged
from and been associated completely with Christ. There are no references to the apostles,
neither as authors nor as witnesses.
Because there are no references within The Didache to Jesus’ twelve, it is
impossible to gauge accurately how they were remembered, honoured, or leveraged. The
fact that second-century apostles were to be received with great dignity is not irrelevant,
but insofar as the issue of apostolicity is concerned, the point is clear: the community
from which The Didache emerged was apparently not reflecting upon these ideas. The
gospel and the Christian tradition were not yet understood as apostolic. They remained
fixed firmly with the Lord and were described and identified accordingly.
Other Apostolic Fathers and Minor Apologists
Among the other, individual second-century writings, most followed a pattern
similar to that seen in 1 Clement and The Didache. The principal discussion relevant to
apostolicity concerned sound doctrine and how the teaching was transmitted from Christ,
through the apostles, and on to the rest of the church. It was typical that the twelve were

21

most notably revered for their position, their having been entrusted with the gospel by
Christ.
Papias of Hierapolis (ca.60-ca.130) illustrates the reverence for those who were
minstered to by Jesus. He famously celebrated the great privilege and value of hearing
the “living and abiding voice” of truth, particularly among those who sat under the
apostles.45 He is often looked to as one who values the idea of apostolic tradition, but
apart from this famous quote, the few surviving fragments of his writings reveal nothing
else of consequence.
The Shepherd of Hermes (ca.100-150) painted a visual, prophetic picture of the
blessed unity of the church. This unity was rooted in its doctrinal purity, and the apostles
were one of many “stones” that square together to form a grand “tower.”46 The twelve
were thus given a prominent role but were not distinguished in any meaninful way. They
are part of the story, but the narrative is not identifed with, or centred around them.
The Epistle of Barnabas (ca.90-110) and Polycarp of Smyrna’s Epistle to the
Philippians (ca.120-140) summarize the prevailing attitude: the apostles were the twelve
chosen by Christ and given “authority to preach his gospel.”47 By virtue of this esteemed
position, the twelve were recognized for their privileged status and close proximity to
both the Lord himself and the truth.48 Barnabas, however, made clear the dichotomy
present between the message and the messengers. The teachings themselves are “the
45

“If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by
Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples
of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what
came from the living and abiding voice.” Papias, 1.
46
Shepherd of Hermes, 3rd Vision 5. Ante-Nicene fathers: The Writings of the fathers down to A.D.
325. Volume 2.
47
The Epistle of Barnabas, 5 and 8.
48
The Epistle Of Polycarp To The Philippians, 3, 6, 9, 11.

22

doctrines of the Lord”49 passed on by twelve “sinners above all sinful men.”50 Therefore
there is always present among the apostolic fathers a significant emphasis on obeying
one’s leaders, whether they be bishops, elders, or deacons. The most important issues are
doctrinal rootedness and conformity to the teachings as given by Christ himself.
The earliest apologists, Aristides (ca.125) and the author of The Letter to
Diognetus (ca.150-ca.180), demonstrate continuity with the rest of the apostolic fathers.
References to the twelve are not common and when there is mention of them, as is
customary in this period, they are simply extolled for their role in the transmission of
God’s revelation.51
Ignatius of Antioch
Of all the apostolic fathers, the letters from Ignatius (ca.105-115) contain the
greatest number of references to the twelve. As a bishop and early adopter of the
monepiscopacy one might anticipate this. Unlike many of the other writers of his
generation, Ignatius did mention the roles and ongoing significance of Jesus’ leading
disciples. A well-known example was his self-comparision to them: “I do not, as Peter
and Paul,” he wrote, “issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ,
but I am the very least [of believers]…”52 Not only did he elevate them far above himself,
but he also interacted with the relationship between the twelve and the Christian writings
(their “commandments”). Whereas The Didache did not actually mention the apostles,

49

Barnabas, 1. See also chapter 21. The church is to remain faithful in walking in the “judgements
of the Lord.”
50
Barnabas, 5.
51
The one possible exception is in the 11th chapter of The Letter to Diognetus. There is mention
here of the “mysteries” given the twelve and mention also of the “apostolic tradition,” but the chapter is
generally dated much later than the rest of the letter. See, Cyril J. Richardson, Early Christian fathers
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952), 205-210.
52
Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 4.

23

and while Barnabas refered to the Christian teaching as “His [Jesus’] gospel,”53 Ignatius
began to associate more closely the twelve with the emerging Christian writings. He
spoke of being in unity with the “enactments of the apostles”54 and refers to the
establishment of the “doctrine of the Lord and apostles.”55 These two statements mark the
first known instances where the content of the doctrinal tradition was branded with more
of an apostolic label, as became customary later in the second century. The appearance of
the expressions are noteworthy, but their significance is qualified by two important
factors. First, the remaining Ignatian references to the twelve remain more consistent with
those of the other apostlic fathers, and second, Ignatius’ reflections on apostolic legacy
pale in comparison to his favoured topic of discussion, the episcopacy.
Leveraging apostolic memory was not a great concern for Ignatius. A statement
from his letter to the Magnesians is representative of his customary practice of
referencing the twelve: “Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to
the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the
Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.”56 Typically, when Ignatius
speaks of the apostles, he, like Clement, refers to them as one part of the divine economy.
They are not singled out for their unique and authoritative role but are included in God’s
larger vision. For Ignatius, that vision is dominated not by the apostles – as will be shown
to be the case for Irenaeus - but by a strong emphasis on the office of the bishop.

53

Barnabas , 5.
Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, 7.
55
Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, 8. See also chapter 13 from Magnesians, as well as his
comments in Romans 4:3 and Ephesians 3:1.
56
Ignatius, Magnesians, 13.
54

24

One does not need to read far into his letters before discovering his foremost
concern on the matters of authority and leadership. Ignatius and his writings are
remarkable for their early witness and fierce dedication to an ecclessiology centered
around the monepiscopacy. While his few apostolic references are not insignificant, his
teachings on the role of the bishop are numerous and clear. He challenged the
Magnesians, for example, to “do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop
presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the
apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the
ministry of Jesus Christ.”57 Each level of leadership was highly revered, but it is
significant to note the position of the bishops in comparison to the apostles. Declared as
they are to be “in the place of God” it is Ignatius and his fellow bishops atop the pinnacle
of authority, and not because of any historic or sacramental connection to the twelve.
Moreover, continuity with the apostles is identified for the Magnesians in the office of
their local presbyters. It is significant to note that these presbyters, despite their apostolic
identification, were positioned at a lower plane than the bishops.
This trend continued in the early part of his Letter to the Philadelphians. Ignatius
here made another noteworthy statement concerning the governance of the church. He
proclaimed the benefit of being in unity with the bishop, presbyters, and deacons “who
have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in
security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.”58 There was no mention of the
apostles, their office, or their role in appointing the next generation of leaders. The point
here was not that Ignatius had omitted the apostles place in the history of the church’s
57
58

Ignatius, Magnesians, 6.
Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, prologue.

25

leaders; rather, it was that he did not equate his generation’s governance as being firstly
apostolic in character or identity. Their leaders’ primary identification was rooted in their
selection according to the will of Christ.
While there are several apostolic references in the letters of Ignatius, they did not
bear the marks of one attempting to expand upon, or leverage their memory. John Behr
rightly states that “Ignatius goes far beyond the other writers of his period in exalting the
role of the apostles.” However, he overstates the matter by adding: “the apostles are
always placed on the eternal, universal level, along with Christ and His Father.”59
Ignatius went to great lengths to champion the virtue of, and obedience necessary to, the
church’s leaders. I have sought to demonstrate, however, that for Ignatius, the apostles
were not represented alongside the exalted positions of Christ and the Father, as Behr
suggests. The apostles were to be remembered and honoured, but for Ignatius, it was the
bishops that were to be exalted.
Apostolic Memory in the Apostolic Fathers
These few examples represent all significant references to the apostles in the first
generation of writings following the New Testament era. There is a consistent view of the
apostolic ministry that understood the twelve to have received the truth from Christ
before they took his message abroad. The apostolic fathers revered the apostles as men of
faith and leaders, but the references to them remained primarily in the context of history.
Their name and office are leveraged for the purpose of legitimacy and continuity, but
there was not yet developed the language of an apostolic identity.

59

John Behr, On the Apostolic Preaching / St. Irenaeus of Lyons: A Translation and Introduction
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 9.

26

Post-apostolic fathers: Justin and Hegesippus
Introduction to Justin Martyr
The writings of the apologist Justin (ca. 100-ca. 160) represent a significant
advancement in the development of early Christian theology, and his reflections on
apostolic memory are no exception. His Dialogue with Trypho and the First Apology
contain numerous references to the subject.60 Like those before him, Justin embraced the
apostles as those entrusted to preserve and pass on the essentials of the faith. Their role
was to transmit Christ’s teachings61 and sacred practices (baptism and Eucharist).62 This
mid-second century apologist expanded upon the apostolic concept in three key ways:
first, he more thoughtfully interacted with the implications of the apostles as authors of
scripture; second, he attributed an almost prophetic voice to the apostles as God’s
messengers; and third, he elaborated on the power given to them by God for their task.
These three distinctive features bear closer examination.
The Literature of the Apostles
Justin was not the first to interact with the New Testament writings, but he was
the first to discuss seriously their authorship and the related implications.63 Others,
particularly Ignatius, drew heavily upon the apostolic literature, but did not thoughtfully
discuss the matter of their provenance. This is not to suggest that any of the apostolic
fathers envisioned the writers being any outside the apostolic circle.64 On the contrary,

60

The Second Apology contains no references to the twelve.
Justin, First Apology, 45, 49.
62
Justin, First Apology, 61 (baptism), 66 (Eucharist meal).
63
The internal mention of 2 Peter to Paul notwithstanding (2 Peter 3:15). Ignatius interacted with
the content of Paul’s epistles but never cited them. He wrote about both scripture and apostle but never in
the same context. See Behr, Apostolic Preaching, 9.
64
As late as Tertullian was the emerging New Testament documents viewed as being entirely and
identifiably apostolic. They were written by one of the twelve, by Paul, a close companion such as Luke,
61

27

this is everywhere assumed.65 In his writings, Justin began to address more directly the
apostles as authors, but his reflections on the subject nevertheless remained somewhat
superficial. For the most part he treated their writings as little more than an extension of
their preaching ministry. If preaching was the verbal repetition of the teachings of Jesus,
the written word was that same message “published.”66
Functionally, the accepted Christian texts of Justin’s day were treated by him at a
level of authority on par with the Hebrew scriptures.67 Despite this, however, the
apologist resisted using shared terms to describe these old and new texts. In the First
Apology, the Torah and Prophets were always referred to as “writings” whereas the
Christian literature was specifically referenced as the “memoirs” of the apostles, “called
gospels.”68 He never interchanged those terms, and most significantly, he avoided
referring to either as scripture. In The Dialogue with Trypho, the Hebrew texts are
repeatedly referenced as scripture, but Justin continued to refer to the Christian texts only
as the apostolic memoirs. Whatever the reason for the choice of terms, the relevant
development for this study is Justin’s interaction with the apostolic role in the formation
of the authoritative Christian texts. Naming the texts as the memoirs of the apostles

or, according to Tertullian, by Barnabas (as author of Hebrews). See John F. Jansen, “Tertullian and the
New Testament,” in The Second Century 2, no. 4 (1982): 191-193.
65
This assumption reveals the early stage of the canonization process and the accompanying low
level of critical engagement on the related issues of inspiration and scripture.
66
Justin, First Apology, 42.
67
For a study of the history of the accepted Christian texts, that is, the formation of the canon, see
Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987); Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture: The Authority of the Bible
and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).
68
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho,100; See also Justin, First Apology 66, 67. For a discussion on
Justin’s use of these terms see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1990), 33-40; Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture: The Authority of
the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 112115.

28

brought an elevated emphasis to their contribution; this, in turn, led to the question of
how the human and divine interacted in the formation of the authoritative documents.
These questions had not yet been probed in the early church, and Justin’s reluctance to
use a shared terminology may reveal his unwillingness to engage fully that issue.
Where Justin only began to introduce the apostolic role, there was no hesitation
on his part to attribute principle influence to Christ. The emphasis on the twelve pales in
comparison to Christ, certainly when the reference was to the content of scripture, but
also when alluding to the true provenance of the texts. Justin made clear that the gospel,
whether spoken or published, concerned “his (Jesus’) teachings.”69 He stated that “our
Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven,
reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the
apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him.”70
The subject matter of these published works concerned Christ. Their authority rooted “in
His name,” and they referenced the truths that were “promised by Him.”71
The so-called apostolic memoirs were recognized on par with the venerated
Hebrew texts, but there is little doubt of Justin’s perspective on their true character and
identity. They were not firstly apostolic; they were, above all else, rooted in and
predicated upon the authority of Jesus Christ himself.

69

Justin, First Apology, 53.
Justin, First Apology, 42.
71
In one of the fragments extant from bishop Dionysius of Corinth he goes further still by
referencing the Lord’s “writings.” “And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking
away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have
attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not
such.” Dionysius, Fragments from a Letter to the Roman Church, fragment 4.
70

29

Divine Messengers
If Justin revealed reluctance in referencing the Christian literature as scripture, he
did not hesitate to identify the twelve in a prophetic role analogous to the Hebrew
prophets. The writers before him expressed no doubt of the apostles faithfulness in
preserving Christ’s teachings, but Justin elaborated further. To encounter the gospel was
to be exposed to the very ministry of Christ. One could be “persuaded by His teaching
though the apostles.”72 Indeed, just as Abraham heard the very voice of God calling him
to a new land, so “in like manner we having believed God's voice spoken by the apostles
of Christ ...”73 “Through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled with the glory
and grace of God and of His Christ.”74 There is the emphasis on the centrality of Christ as
author, but there is a sacred, prophetic honour given his disciples in this role. They are
the very mouthpiece through which God himself communicates. Their ability to remain
faithful in this task is clarified in Justin’s third and final distinctive on this matter: the
issue of empowerment.
Divine Empowerment
The New Testament, as demonstrated above, provides a clear witness to the
empowerment of the apostles through the descent and anointing of the Holy Spirit. Prior
to Justin, the ways in which this anointing shaped the apostolic ministry had scarcely
been explored. Though he did not interact with these ideas as Irenaeus and Tertullian
later did, Justin began to introduce the issue. Jesus was described as the eternal Priest and

72

Justin, First Apology, 53.
Justin, Dialogue, 119.
74
Justin, Dialogue, 42.
73

30

the twelve “depend on the power of Christ.”75 This empowerment was given to enable
those who were illiterate to be able to proclaim and teach.76 There is also the implication
that the divine power undergirds and indeed defines the entire apostolic office:
Accordingly, after He was crucified, [he] appeared to them, and had taught them
to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold… and when they
had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power
sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these
things, and were called apostles.77
Summary
Bovon had opined that it was the tendency of the early church to memorialize the
apostles,78 but the literature from the first half of the second century would call this into
question. It is especially difficult to justify the meager references to the twelve among the
apostolic fathers as apostolic memorialization. Justin, however, interacted with the
apostles’ legacy more systematically than anyone before him. His understanding of their
writings and elevation of them to prophet-like status reintroduced their memory and
legacy into the vocabulary and theology of the church. Nevertheless, Justin, like the
thinkers before him, maintained a strict Christocentricism, a perspective on authority and
on the true teaching that was entirely focused upon and identified with Jesus Christ.
Justin began to interact more thoughtfully with the apostolic role, but that role was
entirely overshadowed by his emphasis and total identification with the Christcontribution.
Introduction to Hegesippus
Despite Justin’s important writings and the development of his thought
75

Justin, Dialogue, 42.
Justin, First Apology, 39.
77
Justin, First Apology, 50.
78
Bovon, “Memories,” 1.
76

31

concerning the apostles, his influence on apostolic identity may be overshadowed by the
much smaller contribution of Hegesippus (ca. 110-ca. 180). At first glance this would-be
historian’s influence seems insignificant to this study. He was said to have travelled to,
and chronicled the episcopal histories of several important churches, notably Rome and
Jerusalem.79 However, the surviving fragments from his writings are few, and his
reflections on the apostles are virtually non-existent. In fact, it could be argued that his
writings minimized and indeed even suggested a significantly diminished view of the role
of the apostles, especially when compared to the role ascribed to them by Justin.
Whereas Justin began to probe the issue of apostolic authorship of the Christian
literature and of apostolic empowerment, Hegesippus revealed no interest or concern in
what relevance the twelve had for the second-century church. His lack of apostlememorialization is evident in several ways. First, he did not reference the apostles or the
apostolic despite interacting with closely related issues. His language suggests a
definitive closing of both their era and, more significantly, of their influence. Describing
the emergence of heresy, he wrote:
Up to that period the church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for,
if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule
of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment
or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their
lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the
Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy
of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing
that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and
uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching “knowledge”
falsely so called.80
79

W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 243; R.M. Grant,
Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2003), 17,18; and Patrick J. Hamell, Handbook of Patrology (New York: Alba House, 1968), 51.
80
Hegesippus, “Concerning the Martyrdom of Symeon the Son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem.”
In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.32.

32

Using this language of the “closing” of their lives and leadership, Hegesippus provided
an image of an apostolic fade. Following these brief references, there were no further
allusions to the twelve or any legacy that may be leveraged from their memory. This is
surprising, given his presumed chronological position between Justin and Irenaeus. The
former initiated an increased level of referencing the twelve, the latter; as will be
demonstrated below, increased those references dramatically. In contrast, Hegesippus
made no effort to leverage any degree of apostolic authority or memory in the debate
against false teaching. In fact, he drew influence from a different source altogether.
This second area of anti-apostolic memorialization concerns the comments about
Jesus’ family. There is considerable emphasis in the Hegeseppian fragments discussing
the great influence and importance of Jesus’ relatives. In addition to the better-known
brother, James of Jerusalem, he mentioned the grandsons of Judas, another brother of the
Lord. Hegesippus reported that “When they were released they became leaders of the
churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred
of the Lord.”81 This comment illustrates the absence of the apostolic-link that Irenaeus
and Tertullian will later argue was so prominent among the churches and which they
argued developed with organic continuity. They sought to demonstrate the natural link
from the apostles to the bishops. Hegesippus spoke of the apostolic age as closed, but
also of the “natural” tendency to elevate both martyrs and the kindred of the Lord to the
leadership of the Church.
Hegesippus was silent on the issue of apostolicity and he elevated the relatives of

81

Hegesippus, “Concerning the Relatives of Our Saviour.” In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,

3.32.

33

Jesus to a place of importance; it would therefore seem inappropriate to mention his
fragments as having usefulness for this study. Nevertheless, the Hegeseppian writings
preserved by Eusebius are significant for two additional reasons: first, they signaled the
growing phenomenon of the heterodox movements of the second century. This is
significant because it is against the backdrop of these heresies that so deeply influenced
the writings and apostolic emphases in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Secondly, Hegesippus
introduced the first incarnation of episcopal succession, another prominent theme for the
aforementioned heresiologists82
Hegesippus was not the first to witness the rise of the heretical movements. By his
own testimony, their existence seems to have had a long history, dating back to Simon
the “sorcerer” of Acts 8. Indeed, Tertullian, in his work directed against the Valentinians,
indicated that Justin was the earliest to engage the heretics.83 Irenaeus also referenced a
lost Justinian work, Against Marcion, while Justin himself mentioned his own “Treatise
Against All The Heresies.”84 Both references present compelling evidence that Justin was
active as an apologist against the heresies. Unfortunately these works have not survived.
As a result, Hegesippus’ brief remarks represent the earliest extant warnings of the
struggle against heresy that occupied the church’s early leaders. Moreover, the
combination of the extensive listing of the schismatics and his contempt towards them

82

The position of the church fathers that Hegesippus preceded Irenaeus is here assumed. Lightfoot
and Streeter argue convincingly for Irenaeus’ utilization of Hegesippus’ episcopal list. See B.H. Streeter,
The Primitive Church: Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry: the Hewett
Lectures, 1928 (London: Macmillian, 1929); J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: MacMillan,
1891).
83
Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, 5.
84
Justin, First Apology, 26. “I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already
composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.”

34

foreshadows the forthcoming works of Irenaeus and Tertullian.85
Where this wandering historian’s influence truly emerges, however, is with his
introduction of the episcopal list.
On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to
Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after
him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the
state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets
and of the Lord ... 86
These three sentences, brief as they are, represent Hegesippus’ most significant
contribution to the subject of this thesis: the introduction of the succession lists. C.H.
Turner expresses it this way, “He’s the first to use the verb diade/xesqai of one bishop
succeeding another (see Eus. 4.22.3) and “still more remarkable is his employment of the
noun diadoxh/ for a list of the episcopal succession.”87 In Hegesippus, Turner argues, one
sees “practically the complete doctrine of the Successions as we get it in Irenaeus, only
without the epithet ‘apostolic.’”88 The apostolic, episcopal succession lists become a
central fixture in the apologetic works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, as will be demonstrated
in Chapter Two. These lists, in turn, contributed to the greater emphasis on the apostolic,
supposedly traceable, traditions and religious customs that are argued by Hippolytus,

85

Hegesippus writes: “Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted
by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to
corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like
Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus,
from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from
whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the
Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his
own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs,
false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting
doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ ... .” Hegesippus, “Concerning his journey to
Rome, and the Jewish Sects.” In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.
86
Hegesippus, “Sects.” In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.
87
C.H. Turner, “Apostolic Succession,” in Essays on the Early History of the Church and the
Ministry, ed. H.B. Swete (London: Macmillan & Co. 1918): 117.
88
Turner, “Apostolic Succession,” 118.

35

Eusebius, and others throughout the third and fourth centuries.89 Hegesippus’
introduction of the episcopal list, embraced and expanded upon by Irenaeus, stands as a
watershed moment in the developing theology of that era.90
Early Apostolic Memory Summarized
This first chapter illustrates the earliest memories of the apostles. The New
Testament provides the initial witness, and the presentation of the apostles and their
office was not concisely portrayed. There is an incomplete, often inconsistent picture that
emerges. In combination with the apostolic fathers and the early apologists, there does
however emerge a common perception that had developed concerning their role and
legacy. The principle way the apostles were remembered was for their historical
contribution. Apostolicity, therefore, was understood as being in possession of that which
came from them. The other significant observation from this era is to note that, despite
the revered position of the twelve in the divine economy, references to the apostles were
surprisingly few. It is with Justin that mention of them increased, but here again, memory
of them was confined primarily to their role in the narrative of God’s story. At this stage,
the church’s apostolicity, their understanding and self-awareness of apostolic continuity,
had not yet found expression as an apostolic identity.

89

See for example, Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, The ‘Unwritten’ and ‘Secret’ Apostolic
Traditions in the Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea (Edinburgh, London, Oliver & Boyd, 1965).
90
Arnold Erhardt argued that Hegesippus’ influence was even more significant, adding a priestly,
sacerdotal dimension to the succession idea. Allen Brent discusses the issue at length and argues
persuasively against the position. See Arnold Erhardt, Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of
the Church (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953); and Allen Brent, “Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic
Succession,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (July 1993): 367-389.

36

CHAPTER TWO: APOSTOLIC IDENTITY
This chapter explores the dramatic escalation of apostolic referencing between
Irenaeus and Tertullian in the last quarter of the second century. The episcopal lists
represent the point of transition where apostolicity moved from an emphasis on a continuity
of history to one of identity. It was Irenaeus who first began to frame so much of his
theological and ecclesiological discussion in apostolic terms. Not only did he embrace the
episcopal successions as the primary source of continuity with the twelve, but he also
utilized the apostolic moniker so that it became his favoured description of all things truly
Christian. Tertullian embraced the historic apostolic continuity, but did not follow his
predecessor’s all-encompassing apostolic language and identifications. Apart from the
successions lists he, like Justin before him, primarily utilized Christocentric expressions.
When examined alongside Irenaeus’ parallel themes, it is apparent that Tertullian sought to
refine the over-arching apostolic emphases pursued by his predecessor. In this one sees a
more refined apostolicity in The Prescription Against Heretics as compared to Against
Heresies.

The Heresiologists Embrace the List
Hegesippus’ long list of heretics illustrated the confrontational environment of
second-century Christianity. At the heart of the competing theologies were conflicting
claims to a right possession and understanding of Jesus’ teachings. Several generations had
passed since Jesus’ day and greater reflection concerning the issues of authority and
historical source was required. Tertullian (ca. 160–ca. 225) declared that a primary key in
differentiating heresy and orthodoxy was to determine first “who hold[s] the faith to which
the Bible belongs, and from whom, through whom, when, and to whom was the teaching
37

delivered…”91 Such questions provided the backdrop for an increased emphasis on
apostolicity, and Hegesippus’ list took a place of central importance.
Hegesippus briefly listed the three succeeding bishops of Rome to demonstrate a
convincing continuity of authorities in that church. He furthermore declared that similar lists
existed in “every city” and that, most importantly, they were all found to be “in accordance
with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord…”92 He emphasized unity,
continuity, and authority. Irenaeus (ca.130–ca. 200), followed by Tertullian, added a
dimension not put forth by Hegesippus: the apostolic source. Against Heresies (ca. 180)
expresses it this way:
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…93
the successions of all the Churches… [we do 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 means of the successions of the bishops…94
And from The Prescription Against Heretics (ca. 200):
At once, therefore, the apostles …having obtained the promised power of the Holy
Spirit to work miracles and to speak boldly, they set out through Judaea first, bearing
witness to their faith in Jesus Christ and founding churches, and then out into the
world, proclaiming the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. Again they set
up churches in every city, from which the other churches afterwards borrowed the
transmission of the faith and the seeds of doctrine and continue to borrow them every
day, in order to become churches. By this they are themselves reckoned apostolic as
being the offspring of apostolic churches. Things of every kind must be classed
according to their origin. These churches, then, numerous as they are, are identical
with that one primitive apostolic Church from which they all come. All are primitive
and all apostolic. Their common unity is proved by fellowship in communion, by the
91

Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 19. Unless otherwise noted, Greenslade’s
translation will be quoted. S.L. Greenslade, Early Latin Theology (London: SCM, 1956).
92
Hegesippus, “Sects,” 4.22.
93
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.2.2.
94
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.3.2.

38

name of brother and the mutual pledge of hospitality-rights which are governed by
no other principle than the single tradition of a common creed.95
For his part, Hegesippus had little to say about the apostles, and his surviving fragments do
not suggest that he elsewhere developed a concept of apostolicity. Irenaeus and Tertullian,
however, adopted the Hegeseppian episcopal list and transformed it by emphatically rooting
its origins in the twelve. This adjustment had two significant consequences: first, it infused a
simple, historical lineage of leaders into a more elaborate and sacrosanct structure of
authority. By virtue of their new, apostolic moniker the succession lists received greater
legitimacy, power, and inviolability. No longer was the bishop’s authority and reputation
derived only by virtue of his leadership position in a singular community or by his
continuity with the bishops who preceded and perhaps appointed him. In this new apostolic
scheme, the episcopal office was further strengthened by being rooted in, descended from,
and chiefly identified with the Lord’s apostles themselves. To be connected to the twelve
was, by extension, to be in much closer contact to Christ himself.
The second consequence of anchoring the episcopal lists in the apostolic generation
was an expanded utilization of the apostolic idea. A generation before, references to the
twelve had been relatively few in number, even when the topics of tradition and authority
were discussed. Discussion of the twelve had been concerned almost exclusively with the
historic value of what they had done: the example they provided, the teaching they had
passed on from Christ, and the scriptures they had authored. These memories were all rooted
in the past, but the development of the apostolic successions reintroduced an emphasis on
apostolic influence and identity for the present.

95

Tertullian, Prescription, 20.

39

Episcopal Succession Brevity, Apostolic Boom
There are a number of ironies with the emergence of the heresiologists’ adoption of
the episcopal succession list and the accompanying emphasis on apostolicity. The reality is
that apart from Irenaeus and Tertullian, there is little evidence of others attempting to utilize
this point to combat the heresies. R.P.C. Hanson remarks that “The practice of commending
Christianity by quoting episcopal succession lists seems to have died out with Tertullian.”96
Whereas the argument of the bishops’ lineage may have ultimately proven ineffective, the
emerging emphasis on apostolic identification grew exponentially into the third and fourth
centuries. One need not read far into the writings of Hippolytus, Eusebius, or Basil of
Caesarea to discover that apostolicity took up a position of central importance for them in
defining the church’s tradition, leadership, and ministry.
The study of these developments invariably begins with Irenaeus and Tertullian and
their emphasis on episcopal succession. The irony is that though this issue typically enjoys a
place of prominence in studies on second-century church tradition,97 the two theologians did
not spend a great deal of time arguing the point. The material quoted above are the largest
and most important sections of what they wrote on the subject. Von Campenhausen states
the following about Irenaeus’ contribution (which was more significant than Tertullian’s):
“It is clear that the ideas bound up with office and succession,…by and large take up very

96

R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (London: SCM Press, 1962), 159.
Hanson’s work remains a definitive guide to early Christian tradition. Flesseman Van Leer’s
work is also highly recommended, particularly on the topic of Irenaeus and Tertullian. See Hanson,
Tradition, and Ellen Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: van
Gorcum, 1954).
97

40

little space in Irenaeus’ writings…. Except when they are important to the struggle against
the heretics, they are nowhere pursued or developed.”98
Both heretic and orthodox agreed that the authentic teachings of Jesus were passed
by him to someone. Most agreed that the logical place for Jesus to do this would be among
his closest companions. Indeed, both heretic and orthodox alike declared their origins to be
connected to the apostolic men in one way or another. In response, Irenaeus and Tertullian
were among the first to expand on the definition, implications, and applications of what it
meant to be apostolic in a post-apostolic age. While the two of them were united in their
argument for apostolic successions from the twelve through the episcopal successors, the
manner and extent to which they further applied the implications of apostolicity to their
larger heresiological strategies differed. It becomes evident that Tertullian chose not to
embrace his predecessor’s all-encompassing apostolic vision.

Irenaeus and Apostolic Identity
The Elevation of Scripture’s Apostolicity99
One expected outcome from Irenaeus and Tertullian’s emphasis on apostolicity was
an increase in specific references to the writings of the twelve. Reliance upon these texts
began as far back as the apostolic fathers, but the anti-heresy literature of the second century
initiated an increased level of engagement. In this engagement, one significant factor seen
with Irenaeus is the way that he spoke about the Christian texts.
98

Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 172.
It is not within the scope of this study to explore fully the use of, limits of, and understanding of
scripture in the second century. I generally use the term consistent with the way it was utilized by these
early writers. That is, that there was in this time a generally accepted collection of Christian texts that had
been embraced as scripture, as authoritative texts for the church on par with the Hebrew scriptures. In the
scope of this study, no texts have been referenced by the fathers as scripture apart from those that would
later be canonized. For a more thorough discussion on this topic see Allert, Scripture.
99

41

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.100
Irenaeus expanded upon Justin’s approach to the sacred texts in two ways. He declared that
the “scriptures” which had been handed down – and he had in view here the Christian texts
– were “to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” Unlike Justin, Irenaeus demonstrated no
reluctance in identifying Christian texts as scripture. These references are common
throughout Against Heresies, so common, in fact, that it suggests this had become standard
practice by the time of Irenaeus’ writing. Regardless, this is the first departure seen from the
heresiologist.
The second departure is in the systematic approach of using the scriptures. Irenaeus
spends the bulk of Book III, particularly chapters six through twenty, interacting with
heretical positions and carefully contrasting them with specific Christian texts. John Behr
goes so far as to say that “Irenaeus is the first patristic writer to make full use of the
apostolic writings as Scripture.101 Von Campenhausen adds that “Irenaeus is much more of a
scriptural theologian than is normally realized or admitted. Only as an extra – or rather, only
under the pressure of controversy with the false teachers – does he himself in a small
number of passages accept the concept of tradition…”102 Irenaeus was by no means the first
to draw upon the future New Testament texts,103 but his systematic approach with them and

100

Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.1.1.
Behr, Apostolic Preaching, 14. Behr notes that “There are reports of earlier anti-heretical
writings, such as the works written against Marcion by Justin and Theophilus of Antioch, in which,
conceivably, greater emphasis could have been given to the apostolic writings, but they no longer exist.”
See Footnote 5 on page 14.
102
Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 162.
103
See Barton’s summary of Stuhlhofer’s research, which showed the early use of the New
Testament references prior to Irenaeus. J. Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early
Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 14-36.
101

42

his emphasis on the centrality of the written word for the evaluation of the truth were
significant advancements.
As significant as the appearance of Christian scripture is in Against Heresies, the
development is not surprising. The early chapters of Book I indicate that the heretics
themselves had been utilizing the Christian writings, and, according to Irenaeus, they defiled
both text and interpretation: “Striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to
their own wicked inventions ... they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means
of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions ... And others of them, with great
craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the
truth ... ”104 In response, Against Heresies sought to set the record straight. The principle
means which by the truth, the teachings of Jesus, are preserved, understood, and identified
are from those scriptures that have come down from the apostles. Amongst those writings
alone, were the boundary lines of orthodoxy determined. He expresses it this way:
… The 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 declare: "He that heareth you, heareth
Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me… 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.105
Irenaeus’ utilization of the apostolic letters is an expected development. What is more
noteworthy, however, is the extent to which he emphasizes the apostolicity of those
writings. There is no doubt he sees divine provenance behind the texts. The truth is rooted in

104
105

Irenaeus, Heresies, 1.3.6.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3 preface - 3.1.1. (This is an uninterrupted quote broken up by chapter

division.)

43

the teaching of Christ,106 while the twelve were “eye-witnesses and ministers of the
Word.”107 His position is that they “certainly did not address them in accordance with their
opinion at the time but according to revealed truth.”108 The scriptures are understood as
divine revelation and the ideas here mirror most of what Justin had earlier introduced.
Where Irenaeus moves a step further is in his association of the apostolic role with the
formation of the Christian scripture. Whereas Justin insisted on calling the apostolic writings
memoirs, and never scripture, the following statement from Against Heresies marks a clear
advancement:
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is
permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles
who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God,
pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth…109
It would be difficult to over-exaggerate the extent to which the apostles are emphasized
here. The tradition is “from the apostles;” the scripture “furnished” by them; the Gospel they
did “write” and the doctrine is that “which they recorded.” The emphasis of the twelve
passes far beyond their being mere messengers of Christ’s teaching. Irenaeus seeks to
immerse fully every aspect of the teaching and tradition in, and identify the faith directly by,
its apostolicity. This goes beyond what Justin was willing to say about the Christian texts.
As was demonstrated above, Justin was willing to utilize the apostolic memoirs as being
fully authoritative, but he clearly emphasized their Christocentric identity over and against
the apostolic.

106

He references Christ’s “doctrine” 3.13.2, 5.27.1; and the “Lord’s scriptures” 5.20.2.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.14.2.
108
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.5.2.
109
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.5.1.
107

44

Irenaeus’ elevated apostolic emphasis is made more surprising in light of a similar
line of thinking employed by the heretics. Not only were they also interacting with the
emerging Christian scriptures, but they too were pioneers in leveraging apostolic memory.110
The apostles were used extensively by those considered heretics as they sought to justify the
veracity of their positions. Similar to the security offered by the episcopal lists, so did the
heretics offer a lineage of teaching tracing back to one of the apostolic leaders. The
difference is that the heretics typically avoided emphasizing the collective witness of the
apostolic group. Some argued the twelve did not receive full revelation111 while others
claimed a succession of their own through one particular apostle.112 As the dissidents
elevated their use of apostolic claims for their purposes, so did the orthodox leaders.
Irenaeus’ strategy seems to be twofold. Firstly, he articulates the positions of the
heretics and then seeks to counter their interpretations through the exposition of the
apostolic texts. Against Heresies interacts with the deviants point for point. Secondly, he
deploys an argument of succession similar to that of the heretics themselves. Irenaeus’
succession seeks to demonstrate the assured legitimacy of both the process and content of
the orthodox way. The process is preserved by the episcopal lists; the content determined
through alignment to what was handed down from the Father, to the Son, and through the

110

Von Campenhausen assures that “There is therefore no cause for surprise that the idea of an
exactly verified tradition, confirmed by definite named witnessed, did not emerge first where men thought
of themselves as ‘catholic’, but rather in the opposing camp. Why should an orthodox congregation… have
any doubts at all that the teaching to which it was accustomed was the original truth, proclaimed by the
apostles?” Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 159.
111
“They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not
capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those
qualified for understanding it. Irenaeus, Heresies, 1.3.1. See also 3.2:1-2, 3.3.1, 3.14.1; and Tertullian,
Prescription, 23-32.
112
The Cainites claimed they had received the fullness of knowledge through the traitor Judas,
who alone knew the full extent of the truth. Irenaeus, Heresies, 1.31.1.

45

apostles to their churches. But for each of these elements, their apostolicity is of utmost
importance.
What is unique is not that the twelve played a key part in this articulation of the
tradition, but the place of central prominence that Irenaeus gave them. Because the heretics
were accused of innovation and illegitimacy, one might expect as little human influence as
possible in Irenaeus’ schema. However, in the same way the schismatics’ writings attributed
great influence to the apostles, so too did Against Heresies. The apostles were not the
passive messengers as they appeared in the apostolic fathers and early apologists; for
Irenaeus, the Christian scriptures were identified as thoroughly apostolic works.
The Elevation of Apostolic Identity
Irenaeus elevates the apostolic emphasis of the scriptures, an elevation unsurprising
in light of the fact that the twelve did, it was assumed, author the texts. The apostolic
elevation in Against Heresies, however, did not end with the new Christian scriptures. For
Irenaeus, the emphasis on apostolicity became the expression of choice to identify and
describe authentic Christianity. Scholars look back to this period and frequently use the
expression of “orthodoxy,”113 but for Irenaeus the preferred moniker was apostolic. This
strategic emphasis was for the purpose of demonstrating as strong a connection as possible
to Christ.
In Against Heresies, to refer to the twelve was to point back to the divine. To hear them was
to hear Him. Whereas the Valentinians carried the name of their founder, Valentinus, and

113

See James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the
Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990); and Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).

46

the Basilideans from Basilides, Irenaeus argued a true apostolic connection was as true a
connection to Christ as could be achieved.
This does not remain only an underlying theological principle or presupposition,
however. Irenaeus emphasized frequently, and with great force, the apostolic origins and
character of all facets of the Christian tradition. This tendency is prominent throughout book
III, particularly the first five chapters, which, with the preface, contain nearly fifty
references to the apostles. In a meandering section that argues for the strength of the
episcopal lists, he includes such statements as:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church . . . the preaching
of the apostles… and their traditions… declaring the tradition which it had lately
received from the apostles… the apostolical tradition of the Church… by this
succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the
truth, have come down to us.114
Indeed, whether he refers to the faith (3.Preface), the gospel (3.1.1), tradition (3.2.2, 3.1,
3.3), doctrine (3.12.5, 14.4, 15.1), or truth (3.4.1), Irenaeus made it his custom to affix
apostolic identification.
A Criterion for Apostolicity
Irenaeus’ references to the apostolic are more than just the overtaxed usage of a
favoured adjective. Against Heresies reveals that apostolicity is a prescriptive idea, not a
descriptive one. Irenaeus was not remarking on a particular characteristic of the faith; he is
expressing a defining foundation and criterion. This is especially evident in the statements
regarding the legitimacy and authenticating criteria that defines the true Christian institution.
Episcopal succession had previously been examined for the manner in which it utilized a
historical lineage of bishops. The Hegeseppian list was expanded to be traced back to and
114

Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.3.3.

47

rooted in the apostolic office for the purpose of arguing a better preserved tradition of
teaching. Irenaeus leveraged this innovative argument as a useful point for debate against
upstart heretics and as a central tenet and criterion for a doctrine of ecclesiology. Simply
stated, in Against Heresies, to be a true church was to be, without exception, a church that
was in direct succession to the apostles.
Irenaeus leveraged the episcopal succession idea in order to root authentic
Christianity to apostolic continuity. The strength and assurance of a trustworthy, historic
continuity of leadership was not the only element to Irenaeus’ apostolic emphasis however.
Against Heresies also introduced a spiritual component to the succession idea. He writes:
Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who,
as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with
the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to
the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others
who depart from the primitive succession ... 115
Continuity with the apostles’ churches was important not only for historicity sake, but also
because it was there that the “gift of truth” is found. The true church is that place where “the
gifts of the Lord have been placed.”116 These gifts, imparted by Christ to his twelve, and
onwards through the successions of bishops, were the preserving and unifying source of
authenticity.117
True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the
ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive
manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by

115

Irenaeus, Heresies, 4.26.2.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 4.26.5.
117
The gift is of such power that those who receive it cannot harm it. “Nor will any one of the
rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be 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.” Irenaeus, Heresies, 1.10.2.
116

48

which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come
even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging.118
The bishops are the apostles’ “successors,” those to whom the twelve did “deliver up their
own place of government.”119 The truth cannot be found apart from the apostolic churches
because to this institution alone is entrusted “all things pertaining to the truth: so that every
man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to
life ... ”120 For Irenaeus, the path for the truth and for orthodox faith and institution emerges
from the office of the apostles. To be identified with Christ, one must be identified with the
apostolic.
Conclusion
Against Heresies presented an innovative strategy of attack against the heretical
movements of its day. Irenaeus’ writings were pioneering both in its systematization of its
theology and in its point-by-point interaction with the heretical teachings. Even more
significant, however, was the pronounced emphasis and elevation of an apostolic identity for
the church. This campaign against the schismatics was one rooted firmly on the foundational
idea that to be part of the true church one was required to be apostolic.
Tertullian’s Refined Apostolicity
The theological ideas of Irenaeus and Tertullian are frequently discussed together,
particularly as it concerns the issues of tradition, heresy, and ecclesiology.121 With the issue

118

Irenaeus, Heresies, 4.33.8.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.3.1.
120
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.4.1.
121
It is not uncommon for Tertullian to be presented as indistinct from Irenaeus. Kelly illustrates,
stating that on the matter of tradition, “Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’ in any important
respect.” J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1978): 39.
119

49

of apostolicity, however, The Prescription Against Heretics presents a revised emphasis and
focus from that found in Against Heresies.
On the Use of Scripture
One of the distinguishing features of The Prescription is the comment about using
scripture in debate with heretics. In his typical, bombastic style, Tertullian argued, “It
follows that we must not appeal to Scripture and we must not contend on ground where
victory is impossible or uncertain or not certain enough.”122 This contrasts sharply with
Irenaeus’ strategy, which was to answer the heretics false claims, from the scripture, point
by point. It is also interesting that Tertullian would make such a statement in light of the fact
that his predecessor so boldly stated that the scriptures must be the “ground and pillar of the
faith.”123
Tertullian’s position was not that written tradition was inferior to that which remains
unwritten. Rather, he argued from chapters fifteen through nineteen that to debate scripture
with heretics was simply ineffective. To do so was an exercise in futility because it would be
an attempt to enter a debate where neither side can conceivably move from their entrenched
positions; both could only argue the foolishness and/or perversions of the other.124 His view
was that the only debate worth engaging was the matter of who could rightfully and
logically claim to possess the truths and traditions of Jesus. He humorously observed that

122

Tertullian, Prescription, 19.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.1.1.
124
“The heretics too can retort these charges upon us. Maintaining equally that the truth is with
them, they are compelled to say that it is we who introduce the falsifications of Scripture and the lying
interpretations.” Tertullian, Prescription, 18.
123

50

arguments about Scripture achieved nothing but a pain in the stomach or ache in the head.125
Unlike Against Heresies, The Prescription did not interact with the heretics using scripture.
Irenaeus interacted extensively with the Christian writings for the very reason that
they were apostolic. As the twelve were an extension of Christ’s ministry, so for Irenaeus,
were their writings an extension of the apostolic ministry and authority. In no way did
Tertullian ever question the apostolic provenance or authority of what he himself would first
call the New Testament writings.126 However, his description of the New Testament writings
demonstrates his rationale for avoiding them in debate with heretics. When Irenaeus referred
to the Christian texts, he made certain that their apostolic provenance and identity was
prominently emphasized. He argued the use of the scripture because they came from the
apostles. When Tertullian referred to the apostles’ writings, the apostolic authorship of the
documents was assumed, but their defining feature was not their apostolicity. That is, the
locus of their authority and usefulness to the church did not exist by virtue of their coming
from the hands of the twelve. In fact, one does not find in The Prescription the exhaustive
apostolic references that almost always accompanied Irenaeus’ writings on the subject.
Despite his position on not using it, Tertullian did reference “scripture” more than
two dozen times. Unlike Irenaeus, however, there was never any mention of the apostles,
their role, or the supposed authority that comes by virtue of their authorship. On the four
occasions127 when he does specifically refer to that which the apostles wrote, he, reminiscent
of Justin, did not speak of scripture, but of the apostles’ “letters”. In these four usages the
letters’ scriptural character and authority were assumed, but their authoritative position was

125

Tertullian, Prescription, 16.
See Jansen, “Tertullian and the New Testament,” 191-207.
127
Tertullian, Prescription, 4,19,26,36.
126

51

not as significantly emphasized as in Against Heresies. Tertullian avoids combining
“scripture” with the “apostolic” epithet so important to Irenaeus.
A Criteria for Apostolicity
Tertullian, it has been shown, regarded the apostolic origin and episcopal succession
of the bishops as defining proof for determining the authentic teachers and traditions of
Christianity. Along with Irenaeus, Tertullian declared there was no true faith apart from the
one true church.128 While The Prescription distinguished itself by opting not to use
scripture, it did not abandon Irenaeus’ emphasis on apostolic succession nor on the primacy
of the institution. As is the case with his treatment of scripture, however, Tertullian’s
interaction with apostolicity resulted in modified perspective on both emphases.
Irenaeus argued the criteria and continuity of the true institution were determined
according to a direct association with an apostolic source. Scripture was utilized by Irenaeus
because of its apostolicity; the strength of the one church was determined by the same
principle. Tertullian revised this idea by asking how that continuity was maintained.
Tertullian asked early on, “Do we test the faith by persons or persons by the faith?”129
Concerning the supposed inviolability of the apostolic criterion, he reminded readers that “It
was an apostle that betrayed Christ.”130 While The Prescription argued that the best and
most logical place to find the truth was among the oldest and original churches – those that
were understood to be apostolic in the most organic sense of the word (those planted by one
of the twelve) - Tertullian added an additional factor into the equation: the elevation of creed
alongside institution. He stated:
128

An interesting argument for Tertullian, considering his subsequent withdrawal from the
established church in favour of Montanism. See Frend, Rise of Chistianity, 349, 350.
129
Tertullian, Prescription, 3.
130
Tertullian, Prescription, 3.

52

Consequently [the heretics] will be challenged according to this standard by those
churches which, though they can produce no apostle or apostolic man as their direct
founder, since they are much later foundations (churches are being founded every
day), yet, because they agree in the same faith, are reckoned to be no less apostolic
through their kinship in doctrine. So, when the heresies are challenged by our
churches according to these two standards, let them one and all show how they
regard themselves as apostolic. But they are not, and they cannot prove themselves
to be what they are not. Nor can they be received into peace and communion by
churches which are in any way apostolic when they are in no way apostolic on
account of their disagreement in creed.131
Here is one place where Tertullian utilized the apostolic moniker with the force seen in
Irenaeus. With this usage, however, the key difference between The Prescription and
Against Heresies becomes clearer. Tertullian’s understanding of what truly defined
something as apostolic was not as exclusively focused upon the direct historic connections
that were so important to Irenaeus. For him the scripture and institution were so significant
because of their direct connection to the twelve themselves. They wrote the scripture and
founded the churches, and based on that connection was truth verified. Tertullian used the
term apostolicity for the first time here, as did Irenaeus, but did so in a way that was not
nearly as concerned with that direct connection emphasized so strongly by his predecessor.
Tertullian utilized Irenaeus’ emphasis on succession for the purpose of arguing authenticity
of origins, but he is distinguished from Irenaeus by his willingness to elevate creedal fidelity
as equally important in the determination of what is authentically apostolic. His attempt to
balance these themes is seen most clearly in chapter twenty:
At once, therefore, the apostles (whose name means "sent")…set out through Judaea
first, bearing witness to their faith in Jesus Christ and founding churches, and then
out into the world, proclaiming … Again they set up churches in every city, from
which the other churches afterwards borrowed the transmission of the faith and the
seeds of doctrine and continue to borrow them every day, in order to become
churches. By this they are themselves reckoned apostolic as being the offspring of
apostolic churches. Things of every kind must be classed according to their origin.
131

Tertullian, Prescription, 32.

53

These churches, then, numerous as they are, are identical with that one primitive
apostolic Church from which they all come. All are primitive and all apostolic.132
The critical factor for Tertullian was that apostolicity was much more about what Christ
entrusted to the apostles, rather than on what those twelve men did themselves. It was their
ability to preserve the content and teaching of Christ that was the defining factor.
On the Use of The Apostolic Terminology
Tertullian does not use the term “apostolic” in the same, all-encompassing adjectival
way as Irenaeus does in Against Heresies. It is not that Tertullian betrays any hint of
thinking the teachings of Christ had been passed on by any other. That point he made quite
clear. What he seemed less willing to do was to prominently identify the heart of the faith,
that is, the doctrine and message of Christ, as nothing less than fully Christocentric. In
Against Heresies, Irenaeus nearly always gave a place of prominence to the importance of
apostolic identity. To speak of what was truly Christian, what was accurately orthodox was,
for Irenaeus, to reference it as apostolic. This practice is not embraced within The
Prescription. Tertullian primarily referenced the apostles and “apostolic” in the context of
the historic origins of the church or to the persons themselves. Whereas it was normative for
Irenaeus to label all things related to the institution, tradition, and scripture as apostolic,
Tertullian did not follow suit.133 What he did do, however, was establish a prominent and
alternative emphasis of his own.

132

Tertullian, Prescription, 20.
Tertullian’s eighteen references to “apostolic” are found in two sections: chapters 21-22 and 32,
along with a single occurrence in chapter 36. These references are always to the institution or the twelve.
Two unique instances occur in chapter 22 when he refers to the “apostolic age” and the “apostolic seed.” In
neither case, however, does this deviate from his aforementioned, twofold usage of the word. His
references to the twelve themselves are more frequent, with more than 80 mentions of “apostles” or
“disciples.” Only once, however, does his language reflect Irenaeus’ when he speaks of the “tradition of the
apostles” in chapter 21.
133

54

Tertullian’s Alternative
The Prescription demonstrates Tertullian’s subdued apostolicity. The North African
did more than simply remove the apostles from the equation. Tertullian replaced one
emphasis with another. If the over-riding theological identification in Against Heresies
focused on the apostolic, The Prescription had an equally strong emphasis on a
Christocentric identity and strategy against the heretics. At first glance, the difference may
seem negligible. Irenaeus demonstrated that the principal reason for the apostolic emphasis
was, in fact, to ground the teaching tradition as near to Christ as possible. Tertullian’s
departure, however, was not a subtle shift in language or presentation. Like Irenaeus, he
began with the authority of the apostles:
Our authorities are the Lord's apostles, and they in turn chose to introduce nothing on
their own authority. They faithfully passed on to the nations the teaching which they
had received from Christ.134
Tertullian accepted Irenaeus’ emphasis on the authoritative position of the apostles, but did
not carry forward with the accompanying apostolic emphases. Throughout the remainder of
The Prescription Tertullian leveraged a Christocentric language and emphasis that
distinguished itself from the apostle-centric language of his predecessor. Addressing the
philosophical and speculative inquiring that fostered heterodoxy, Tertullian outlines the
principal message of the faith: “After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the
Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe
anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to
believe.”135 For Tertullian, Christ is the content of the faith. There is a centrality and a great
simplicity to the statement, but it is one that reinforces his central theme: the primacy of
134
135

Tertullian, Prescription, 6.
Tertullian, Prescription, 7.

55

Christ. It is not a unique position to argue for the centrality of Jesus Christ; the apostolic
fathers and early apologists share this emphasis. The Prescription is unique in its language
of identity. Christ is elevated and emphasized in direct contrast to the previous methods and
apostolic language employed by Irenaeus.
The Prescription demonstrates this emphasis most clearly in the matter of the
provenance of the church’s beliefs. Here is where Irenaeus’ language of apostolicity
emphasis reached its zenith, and it is here that Tertullian’s distinction becomes most
apparent. His campaign was to make as clear as possible the fact that the teaching, the
tradition, the gospel about Christ came, first and foremost, from Christ himself.
My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the
world must believe without qualification, and which we must seek precisely in order
to believe it when we find it ... I undertake to establish that Christ's teaching is to be
found with us.136
What you must seek is what Christ taught ... 137
Our Lord Jesus Christ, whoever he is--if he will permit me to speak in this way for
the moment--of whatever God he is Son, of whatever matter Man and God, whatever
faith he taught, whatever reward he promised, himself declared, while he lived on
earth, what he was, what he had been, how he was fulfilling his Father's will, what
he was laying down as man's duty. He declared all this either openly to the people or
privately to the disciples, twelve of whom he had specially attached to his person and
destined to be the teachers of the nations.138
There is nothing unique or innovative in declaring Christ as the author of truth or in pointing
to his teachings as the formative principles. Irenaeus would affirm this. The point is that
Tertullian eliminates the apostolic language used, in favour of a more Christocentric
emphasis. This is perhaps most evident when The Prescription introduces the Rule of Faith.

136

Tertullian, Prescription, 9.
Tertullian, Prescription, 10.
138
Tertullian, Prescription, 20.
137

56

The Rule, or the “Canon of Truth,” as Irenaeus referred to it, was a creedal-like
affirmation used for both worship and as a test of orthodoxy.139 In this era of the church,
however, formal creeds had not yet been established, and so the Rule was a rather fluid idea.
Both Tertullian and Irenaeus made several references to it in their writings and never did
they express it the same way twice. Though the Trinitarian framework remained constant the
precise wording varied, depending on the community from which it emerged. Despite the
idea of a rule of faith being relatively recent to Tertullian, he applies to it the same
Christocentric emphasis as seen above. After outlining the Rule, he states: “This Rule,
taught (as will be proved) by Christ, allows of no questions among us, except those which
heresies introduce and which makes heretics…. To know nothing against the Rule is to
know everything.”140 As is his practice, Tertullian attributes the Rule of Faith directly back
to Christ. The idea that Jesus himself formulated something resembling a creedal-like
Trinitarian statement is rather unlikely, but Tertullian’s point is clear; his campaign was to
fixate fully and completely on Christ and to emphasize for the church an identity rooted in
Christ alone.
Whereas Irenaeus spoke frequently of the apostolic identity for the scriptures, the
gospel, and the tradition, there are no comparable statements found in The Prescription.
Tertullian’s emphasis was to declare Jesus as the principal and solely authoritative author of
truth, while the twelve were more clearly understood to be witnesses and teachers of that
truth. In this, Tertullian clearly distinguishes his strategy against the heretics from that of his
predecessor.

139

See Hanson, Tradition, Flesseman Van Leer, Scritpure, and, L. WM. Countryman, “Tertullian
and the Regula Fidei,” The Second Century no.2 (Winter 1982):208-226.
140
Tertullian, Prescription, 13,14.

57

Theological Significance
The development of an early-church apostolicity witnessed its most significant
advancements under Irenaeus and Tertullian. Prior to Against Heresies, the apostles were
revered primarily for their heroic deeds, honoured for their place of primacy in relationship
to Christ, and utilized for the witness they gave to the Lord and his teachings. Irenaeus
raised their profile by invoking the apostolic moniker with force and frequency throughout
his ground-breaking treatise against the heresies. As has been shown, Tertullian embraced
some, but not all, of Irenaeus’ apostolic ideas. Most significantly, The Prescription
demonstrated the pronounced tendency of replacing many of the apostolic references from
Against Heresies with a more pointed Christocentric emphasis.
The third chapter of this thesis will examine one final point of comparison between
the two heresiologists. This section will demonstrate that the difference in emphasis between
the two writers can be traced to their views concerning the apostles themselves. Specifically,
it will be shown that their understanding of apostolicity was directly rooted in their views on
the manner in which the twelve were anointed and empowered. The key to apostolicity was
the relationship between apostle and the Holy Spirit.

58

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF TERTULLIAN’S DEPARTURE
Apostolic Empowerment: The Relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles

It is tempting to note the differences between Irenaeus and Tertullian on the issues of
church tradition, authority, and continuity and assume the primary point of departure is
rooted in their particular roles, and relationship to the ecclesiastical institution. Irenaeus, the
influential bishop of Lyons, was a man not only important to the established Church, but
was also close to the Roman leadership. Tertullian, however, not only lacked his
predecessor’s credentials, but also became famous for his condemnation of Rome and for his
withdrawal from the “orthodox” Church. His defection in the early third-century to the
Montanist movement was seen in that day as an act of treachery and heresy in its own right.
Though the writing of The Prescription predates his infamous departure, there might
nevertheless be the temptation to point to his later actions as a clue to his earlier thinking.
While the point is valid and worthy of consideration, I argue in Chapter Three that there is
another, more important theological point of distinction between the two heresiologists,
namely the manner in which they understand the empowerment of the original apostles by
the Holy Spirit. The preservation and transmission of Christ’s teaching was understood by
both Irenaeus and Tertullian to have passed through the apostles. There was also agreement
that the process must surely have been aided by the Holy Spirit. Though their theology of
the Spirit was not yet fully developed, both affirmed the critical role it played in the
apostles’ ministry. Just as the two of them uniquely expressed the relationship of
apostolicity to the Christian identity, so too did they express the Spirit’s principal role
among the twelve in distinct ways.. Irenaeus’ focus was on the divine gifts received by the
twelve. The principle gift of the Spirit was the gift of knowledge and understanding of the
59

truth itself. In Against Heresies, however, there is often a nearly indistinguishable quality
ascribed to both the divine teaching and to the apostles themselves. Tertullian’s emphasis on
apostolic empowerment centers on their ability to execute the ministry entrusted to them by
Jesus. Already in possession of the divine teachings from their time with Christ, the spiritual
gifts enabled them to communicate the truth and remain steadfast and true to it.

Irenaeus on the Empowered Apostles
One of the arguments employed by the heretics was to assert that Irenaeus and his
sister churches were in possession of an incomplete, or corrupted doctrinal tradition. The
argument was that despite direct continuity with the apostles these churches were not in
possession of the complete gospel.141 It was with that attack on their intellectual integrity
that Irenaeus sought to establish the reliability of their source, namely, the spiritually gifted
and empowered apostles. Irenaeus summarized his position at the start of Book III.
It is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect
knowledge,” 142 as some do even venture to say… 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 of heaven to men…143
Irenaeus reveals two critical points concerning the empowerment of the apostles by the Holy
Spirit. He speaks of their perfection and of their power. These points prove crucial in his
development of the larger issue of apostolicity.

141

See Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.12.7, “Can it really be that Peter was not at that time as yet in
possession of the perfect knowledge which these men discovered afterwards? [referring to his opponents]
According to them, therefore, Peter was imperfect, and the rest of the apostles were imperfect…”
142
Perfect knowledge translated from the latin perfectam agnitionem.
143
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.1.1.

60

Apostolic Perfection
There are a few references to perfection throughout Against Heresies. Typically they
are general in their scope, alluding to any and all genuine Christians, those who are
“rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit.”144 It is clear that
Irenaeus had in view the New Testament picture of being declared righteous before God, but
in process of transformation when he declared that the believer does now “receive a certain
portion of His Spirit, tending towards perfection, and preparing us for incorruption.”145
Foreshadowing what later became known as the believers’ imputed righteousness, Irenaeus
affirmed that Christians are, in God’s eyes, without fault; they are perfect. Insofar as the
apostles were concerned, however, perfection took on an additional and intensified meaning.
The twelve were “the truly perfect, who, after the assumption of the Lord, were
perfected by the Spirit…”146 The context of these remarks reveals that it was not Irenaeus’
suggestion that the twelve had been perfected in an immediate or all-encompassing spiritual
sense. Rather, the discussion here, and elsewhere, specifically addresses the quality and
integrity of their message. This argument was no doubt a response to the accusations that
suggested they had not received the full revelation of knowledge from Christ. It was against
that claim that Irenaeus argued the twelve were “above all falsehood,”147 and as quoted
above, to assert that they preached without perfect knowledge would be “unlawful.”

144

Irenaeus, Heresies, 5:6.1. See also 3.18.2. The most detailed discussion of the Spirit’s role in
the life of the believer is found in the first eleven chapters of book five.
145
Irenaeus, Heresies, 5.8.1. The related New Testament passages include Hebrews 10:14, “For by
one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (NKJV). Paul also spoke of desiring
“the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” but added, “Not that I have already
obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on…” Philippians 3:9,12 (NASB).
146
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.12.5.
147
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.5.1.

61

The point throughout Against Heresies was to defend the credibility and authority of
the apostolic message. The Holy Spirit, conferred upon the twelve by Christ, was understood
to be the legitimizing factor. Although Irenaeus’ teaching on perfection was meant firstly to
illuminate the veracity of the orthodox teachings, he did not draw a fine point of distinction
to the men themselves. He did not argue for the perfection of the message alone, but stated
quite firmly they themselves were also “truly perfect.” As a result, not only did the message
gain credibility, but the men themselves also possessed exceptional authority.
To illustrate this authority, Irenaeus took further steps to articulate their unique role.
He compared, and indeed elevated, the status of the twelve to a position analogous to the
Old Testament prophets.
But if, at His advent, He sent forth His own apostles in the spirit of truth, and not in
that of error, He did the very same also in the case of the prophets; for the Word of
God was always the self-same…. The Lord, therefore, who has called us everywhere
by the Apostles, is He who called those of old by the prophets, as appears by the
words of the Lord; and although they preached to various nations, the prophets were
not from one God, and the Apostles from another; but, [proceeding] from one and
the same, some of them announced the Lord, others preached the Father, and others
again foretold the advent of the Son of God, while yet others declared Him as
already present to those who then were afar off. (4.35.2; 36.5)
That Irenaeus would be willing to associate so clearly the apostles with the prophets had
significant implications. First, as has already been demonstrated, this association further
establishes the infallibility of the apostolic message. The twelve were not presented as mere
teachers passing on what they themselves once learned. Rather, this prophetic connection
showed that they served as direct messengers, virtual conduits for God himself. As the
prophets of old received divine anointing and authority to declare direct revelations of God,
so with the Spirit did the twelve receive authority and a perfect word from above. They were
not passive in handing on a perfect message, they, by virtue of their anointed role, were

62

intimately involved in the process. Irenaeus affirmed this position elsewhere in the
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching when he wrote, “… for it is not a man who
speaks the prophecies; but the Spirit of God, assimilating and likening Himself to the
persons represented, speaks in the prophets and utters the words sometimes from Christ and
sometimes from the Father.”148
The second implication relates to the unique place the Old Testament scriptures, and
the prophets in particular, enjoyed in the second-century church. In the Demonstration – a
work probably aimed more to the laity than Against Heresies and therefore more
representative of typical Christian teaching – prophets are mentioned or quoted
approximately fifty times. The apostles, however, are mentioned on only a few occasions,
despite the title of the document addressing the “apostolic preaching.” Because the church of
this era was so accustomed to hearing of the prophets as exceptional authorities, Irenaeus’
elevation of the apostles to an equal status is significant. Their reception of the Spirit for a
perfect knowledge establishes them as the teachers and authorities without equal. Their
significance was not only in their proximity to Jesus and his teaching, but also in the
exclusive, authoritative gifts given them.
Apostolic Power
Against Heresies roots the perfection and authority of the twelve in the “power” they
received from God. Here again there is a two-fold understanding of where precisely the
power rested. On the one hand, Irenaeus rooted it in the message itself, declaring, “the Lord
of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the

148

Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 49:142. From J.A. Robinson, St Irenaeus:
The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. London: SPCK, 1920.

63

truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God…”149 There is a power associated directly with
the message, and thus in this sense the apostles possess empowerment by virtue of having
been entrusted with the gift. On the other hand, there is the additional understanding of
power directed more specifically at the apostolic leaders. “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.”150 Not only
is the message empowered, but they also are particularly anointed by God. Their giftedness
does not refer to acts of power. That is to say, Irenaeus rarely spoke of their giftedness to
preach or perform miracles; rather, their giftedness is nearly always a more generic
declaration of their own profound anointing, role, and office. In III.18 Irenaeus dealt with
the issue of the veracity of their teaching and specifically referred to the commissioning
words of Matthew 18:19 to go to the nations and teach. Yet he does not speak here of their
ability nor empowerment to do so. Instead, he speaks of God “giving to the disciples the
power of regeneration into God.”151 A chapter later he states that apostles, at Pentecost,
received “power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new
covenant.”152
In Summary
Irenaeus’ writings represent some of the earliest critical reflections on the Holy
Spirit. Although not fully developed, what the scattered pneumatological references reveal is
the principal role Irenaeus understands the Spirit to be executing in the apostolic ministry.
What is evident in these texts is that Irenaeus had a very high view of the empowered
149

Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.pref.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.1.1.
151
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.18.1.
152
Irenaeus, Heresies, 3.18.2.
150

64

apostle. Moreover, his emphasis on apostolic perfection and power reveal a difficulty in
separating the divine quality of the message from the messengers themselves. He attributed
a divine, empowered quality almost equally to both.

Tertullian’s Empowered Messengers
The question of the relationship between Spirit and apostle is not easily answered
from Tertullian’s Prescription. Indeed, when his writings take on an apologetic or rhetorical
purpose his teachings prove difficult to generalize. His prevailing vision was to prove
victorious in whatever he argued, often at the expense of a consistency of details.153 This is
true on a variety of issues throughout the Prescription, and his pneumatology is no
exception.154 Nevertheless, as Irenaeus revealed his primary understanding of what the
advent of the Spirit meant for the apostolic ministry, Tertullian also provided a basic
framework.
At first glance, The Prescription’s treatment of the Holy Spirit seems to follow
Irenaeus closely. Tertullian affirms the understanding that after Jesus’ resurrection and
ascension the twelve would “receive the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who would guide them
into all truth” and indeed be “taught by the Holy Spirit.”155 The context of this passage is
153

Geoffrey Dunn writes, “…one becomes aware that he could and did write contradictory things
in different works, and one becomes locked in a struggle to figure out what he really believes. Such
difficulties are only overcome when one realizes that he wrote from a rhetorical perspective. …in every
instance Tertullian wrote in order to win arguments. He did not describe, he advocated. It was his overall
position about which he was passionate; everything else was merely theater to prove the point.” Geoffrey
D. Dunn, Tertullian (London: Routledge, 2004), 29.
154
See, for example, his infamous argument concerning the interpretation of Jesus’ “seek, and you
will find” teaching. In chapter eight he argued passionately that the window of opportunity to apply this
text had closed. The word was exclusively for the Jews of that day. And yet he began the next chapter with
the concession, “Suppose that ‘Seek, and you shall find’ was said to us all.” He then spent five chapters
outlining how to properly seek the scriptures. His primary interest was not in the accurate exposition of the
“seeking” text, his sole concern was undermining the heretics, no matter the cost.
155
Tertullian, Prescription, 8.

65

part of his infamous “seek, and you will find” argument where Tertullian attempts to
prohibit the speculative searching of the scriptures. His counsel is for believers to
understand that “we are to be taught by the apostles without any effort of our own, as they
were taught by the Holy Spirit.”156 As Against Heresies trumpeted the perfect apostolic
knowledge, so here Tertullian appears to present the same idea. As the arguments of The
Prescription unfold, however, it becomes apparent that Tertullian was again moving in
another direction.
On being led to truth
Irenaeus placed great stress on the fact that the coming of the Spirit gave knowledge
to the apostles that was both perfect and prophetic in nature. By coupling this perfect
knowledge so closely with the reception of the Spirit, Irenaeus left the reader with the
understanding that the apostles gained wisdom that had not previously been in their
possession. Thus the remark that it would be “unlawful” to suggest they preached prior to
their divine blessing. As noted, Tertullian agreed that the Spirit was both the guide and
teacher of the twelve. However, he went on to explain both what it meant to be led into truth
by the Spirit and the nature of what the apostles understood before and after their
empowerment. Both apologists addressed the specific heretical claims that the apostles had
insufficient understanding of divine truths.157 Whereas Irenaeus countered with his
reception/perfection argument, Tertullian responded with the following:

156

Tertullian, Prescription, 8.
“Sometimes they say that the apostles did not know everything. Then they change their ground
and say that while the apostles indeed knew everything, they did not hand everything on to everybody.
Both suggestions are the product of the same demented state of mind, and in both they are exposing Christ
to blame for sending out apostles who were either inadequately instructed or not sufficiently
straightforward.” Tertullian, Prescription, 22.
157

66

Who in his senses can believe that the men whom the Lord gave to be teachers were
ignorant of anything? For he kept them in his company, taught them, and lived with
them inseparably. He used to explain all difficulties to them privately, saying that
they were permitted to know secrets which the people were not allowed to
understand. Was anything hidden from Peter, the rock on which the Church was to
be built…. Was anything hidden from John, most beloved of the Lord… What could
he wish to keep from the knowledge of those to whom he showed even his own
glory, and Moses and Elijah and the voice of his Father from heaven as well…?158
Here is a significant departure from Irenaeus’ post-ascension, Spirit-given “perfection
theory.” Whereas Against Heresies fixed the locus of importance at the apostles’ reception
of the Spirit, Tertullian argued that the twelve should be trusted because of that which they
had learned alongside Jesus’ ministry. The fact that they had difficulties “explained to them”
and were “permitted to know secrets” while he “lived with them” reveals Tertullian’s
favourable view of their pre-ascension knowledge. Yet, the concluding statement to the
quote above introduced the tension that he had created. Attempting to illustrate further the
folly of the heretics’ argument, he sarcastically concluded, “So those also were ignorant to
whom after the resurrection he deigned to expound all the Scriptures in the way!”159 Though
awkwardly expressed, his point here was to ridicule the heretics and their arguments of
apostolic ignorance. Having stated as nonsense the thought that Jesus would not have
adequately instructed his own disciples, he added the reminder of the post-resurrection
promise, this aforementioned teaching ministry of the Spirit. His purpose was to use the two
arguments as twin-strengths in the case for apostolic integrity, but there is the inevitable
introduction of tension concerning this ministry of the Spirit. If they were ignorant of
nothing prior to Jesus’ death, what need was there for the Spirit? In the next and final
paragraph of chapter twenty-two, Tertullian set out to resolve this dilemma.

158
159

Tertullian, Prescription, 22b.
Tertullian, Prescription, 22b.

67

In the Truth Already, But Not Yet?
To reconcile the teaching ministry of the Spirit with his argument against preascension apostolic ignorance, Tertullian sought to explain the previously referenced, and
seemingly contradictory, use of John 16:12-13. Anticipating this scriptural objection to his
position, he conceded, “At one time, it is true, [Jesus] did say: ‘I have yet many things to say
unto you; but ye cannot bear them now.’” Jesus’ words indicate there was more to be
explained to the apostles, and the next sentence, verse thirteen, ascribes that responsibility to
the ministry of the Spirit. As Tertullian references both verses, however, his interpolated
commentary reveals his interpretation:
At one time, it is true, [Jesus] did say: “I have yet many things to say unto you; but
ye cannot bear them now.” But by adding: “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he
will guide you into all the truth,” he showed that they who would [attain]160 the
whole truth through the Spirit of truth, as he promised, were ignorant of nothing.161
Relying on their three years with Jesus as his chief evidence against apostolic ignorance,
Tertullian interacted with the scriptural theme so prominent in Irenaeus’ thinking. It might in
fact seem easiest to understand the meaning of this passage from The Prescription as
analogous to the arguments in Against Heresies; that is, that the apostles were not ignorant
because the Spirit was soon to guide them. This position, however, does not correspond to
the context of the rest of Tertullian’s chapter and the emphasis on a reliability of preascension, apostolic understanding. Though the logical flow of this particular paragraph is
rather awkward, its intended purpose is clear. The formula for his argument follows this
pattern: 1) It is true, Jesus once said “x,” 2) but by adding “y,” 3) he demonstrated “z.” The
formula demonstrates that the “x” in Jesus’ statement appears to be problematic. His
160

There is a departure here from Greenslade’s translation, which renders consicuturis as
“receive,” whereas Peter Holmes (ANF) and Peter Bindlay both translate it as “attain.”
161
Tertullian, Prescription, 22.

68

contention was that the inclusion of “y” led to the conclusion of “z” and therefore must
qualify “x.” So whatever Jesus meant when he made the reference about things not being
able to be said to the twelve, it must be understood, Tertullian argued, in the context that
they “were ignorant of nothing.” This “ignorance” (Latin Ingnorasse),162 like the context of
the entire paragraph, points back in time, and makes clear Tertullian’s focus on the apostles’
understanding even before their reception of the Spirit.
Consecuturis the Key
The question remains, however, as to what meaning Tertullian envisioned for this
coming of the Spirit. If the twelve were not ignorant prior to the Spirit, then what did it
mean for them to be led “into all the truth?” Tertullian provided his answer as he interpreted
verse thirteen with the statement that “he showed that they would attain the whole truth.”
While this seems to be another contradictory remark – and thus aligns with Irenaeus’
position – the key is in his choice of words for this “attainment” of the truth. Tertullian
argued that verse thirteen shows that the apostles “would attain” (consecuturis) the whole
truth and were therefore “ignorant of nothing.” This “attainment” from the Spirit is central
to his thinking. As already shown, Irenaeus seemed to use this idea to suggest that the
reception of the Spirit marks the arrival of the apostles’ perfect knowledge. Tertullian,
however, did not use a typical word to convey the acquiring of a possession.163 Rather, he
used consecuturis, whose primary meaning includes “to attain,” but is also translated “to
pursue” or “to follow after.”164 These latter renderings are relevant when observing his use
of the term in other contexts, most notably when referring to the Christian’s attainment of
162

Ingnorasse, past perfect tense.
An example is in Chapter 6 when he says, “They faithfully passed on to the nations the
teaching which they had received from Christ.” Here the Latin word for receive is acceptam.
164
See Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid from http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm.
163

69

salvation. For example, when paraphrasing the Pauline statement that Christians “are being
saved,”165 Tertullian uniquely inserts consecuturis in the text as a means of explaining the
dynamic process of salvation. This is similar to the way the usually literal NASB translation
adds “being” saved to the verse. This is in contrast, however, to the Greek text and Vulgate,
both of which do not include “being” but do place “salvation” in the present passive tense.166
It is in fact a distinctive feature of Tertullian’s to use the word when speaking of the journey
of salvation.167 This is most likely due to the fact that for the Christian, salvation is a
promise rooted in the future, yet is also a reality in the present. Consecuturis is a unique
word that captures this two-fold dynamic. Tertullian illustrates this dynamic in his treatise
On Patience.
... believing the resurrection of Christ we believe also in our own, for whose sake He
both died and rose again. Since, then, there is certainty as to the resurrection of the
dead, grief for death is needless, and impatience of grief is needless…. For why
should you bear without moderation the fact that one is gone away whom you will
presently follow? Besides, impatience in matters of this kind bodes ill for our hope…
If, then, we grieve impatiently over such as have attained (consecutos) the desire of
Christians, we show unwillingness ourselves to attain (consequi) it.168
Tertullian’s unique use of consecuturis to refer to salvation can be explained by the word’s
flexibility of meaning, a flexibility that corresponds perfectly to the already/not yet nature of
the Christian’s salvation. The promises of faith will be attained, but are presently being
pursued and “followed after.” When applied to the context of Tertullian’s handling of the
John 16 passage, his purposes become clearer. He sees the reception of the Spirit as
confirming and preserving what Jesus himself established among his apostles. The Spirit is
165

“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being
saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18, NASB.
166
Vulgate: verbum enim crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est his autem qui salvi fiunt id est
nobis virtus Dei est; Greek: ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν τοῖς δὲ
σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν.
167
See also Tertullian’s The Apology, 21; and Against Marcion, 1.19; 1.27; 5.5.
168
Tertullian, On Patience, 9.

70

indeed the guide to truth, but it is not by means of previously unknown revelation. The
twelve did not attain new truths; rather, the Spirit’s guidance and illumination worked with
that which had already been presented to them by the living Jesus himself. As death fulfills
the promise of salvation for the believer, so the advent of the Spirit confirms and preserves
the apostles’ journey into “all truth.”
The Practical Roles of the Spirit for the Apostles and the Church
Tertullian provides a second example of how the Spirit leads to truth and in so doing
distinguishes himself yet again from Irenaeus’ position. In the brief study of the relevant
New Testament passages at the beginning of this thesis, it was noted that there are
essentially three responsibilities for the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Tertullian
referenced the third, “independent ministry of the Spirit” theme when addressing another of
the heretics’ arguments. Commenting on the likelihood that the apostles and subsequent
generations of “orthodox” churches might have all erred into one and the same misguided
faith, Tertullian muses:
Suppose the Holy Spirit had no regard for any church, to guide it into the truth,
although it was for this purpose that Christ sent him and asked him of the Father to
be the teacher of the truth. Suppose the steward of God, the vicar of Christ, neglected
his office, allowing the churches for a time to understand and believe other than as
he himself preached through the apostles…169
Here is a clearer “purpose statement” concerning the role of the Spirit. As John spoke of the
unique and independent role of the counsellor, so did Tertullian state that the Spirit has his
own responsibilities, his own “office.” This role, still under the rubric of the John 16
passage, does not, in fact, involve the apostles whatsoever. The Spirit’s guidance is a work
of preservation for the entire church, a blessing not exclusive to the twelve alone. Moreover,
169

Tertullian, Prescription, 28.

71

whereas Against Heresies emphasized the church’s apostolicity as the safeguard for truth,
Tertullian attributed that responsibility to the Holy Spirit.
Tertullian elaborated on the office of the Spirit in a third way. Again affirming the
apostles’ sufficient, pre-ascension education, he recounted Jesus’ commissioning of the
disciples and gave clear insight into the utility of the Spirit in their ministry. He wrote that
Jesus:
himself declared, while he lived on earth, what he was, what he had been, how he
was fulfilling his Father's will, what he was laying down as man’s duty. He declared
all this either openly to the people or privately to the disciples, twelve of whom he
had specially attached to his person and destined to be the teachers of the nations....
The remaining eleven, on his return to his Father after the resurrection, he ordered to
go and teach the nations, baptizing them into the Father and into the Son and into the
Holy Ghost. …having obtained the promised power of the Holy Spirit to work
miracles and to speak boldly, they set out through Judaea first, bearing witness to
their faith in Jesus Christ…170
This reference to the Spirit’s role is unique in that it is Tertullian’s clearest statement on the
Spirit’s purpose in relationship to the apostles. The statement is definitive in declaring that
the blessing and empowerment was obtained “to work miracles and to speak boldly.” Their
training in the content of faith was complete and they not possessed the abilities necessary to
promulgate the message. This is an emphasis missing from Irenaeus’ writings.

The Relationship of Apostolic Memory
to the Formation of an Apostolic Identity
It is the argument of this thesis that Irenaeus and Tertullian differ in their approach to
the Church’s apostolicity in that they do not equally emphasize or leverage apostolic
memory. It is my contention that this distinction can be attributed to their understanding of
the apostles empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus revealed a high theological view and
170

Tertullian, Prescription, 20.

72

respect for the twelve. The typical position of the apostolic fathers had been to treat the
apostles as the messengers of the divine teaching. In Against Heresies, however, a far more
detailed and elevated role of importance emerged for the twelve. No longer mere
messengers, Irenaeus’ apostles were the specially anointed authorities of power and
perfection. Whereas Clement of Rome pointed his readers to the divine economy of God,
and whereas Ignatius of Antioch placed central importance on the bishop, Irenaeus, with his
high view of the twelve, elevated them to a place of central importance for the church. His
view of the empowered apostle led him to begin identifying the Christian institution and its
teachings as apostolic.
Tertullian did not follow Irenaeus’ practice of expressly naming and claiming
authentic Christianity with the apostolic moniker. His departure in this parallels his
divergent thoughts on the apostles and the nature of their empowerment. One does not see in
The Prescription so nearly high a view of the twelve and their divine giftedness. For
Tertullian, the empowerment was no less divine but was indeed more subdued. His
emphasis remained rooted in their roles as messengers, their gifts given for the purpose of
delivering the divine message. This more understated view of the twelve reveals why
Tertullian would be less inclined to brand all things apostolic. Just as he focussed on Jesus
gifting his followers to be able to spread his message; so in turn he continued to use more
Christocentric language when he expressed the essentials of the faith. In this we therefore
see a direct correlation between apostolic memory – how the apostles were remembered –
with apostolic identity.

73

CONCLUSION
There are good reasons why Against Heresies and The Prescription Against
Heretics are so often paired together. Their subject matter covers the same themes, they
share similar objectives, and both made significant contributions in the development of
Christian theology, particularly in the defense against heresy. On the matter of the
leveraging of apostolic memory, however, Irenaeus and Tertullian demonstrate markedly
different strategies. Though both sought to defend the authentic gospel among the orthodox
churches, the two differed when it came to utilizing the legacy and historic connection to the
twelve apostles.
Irenaeus’ strategy was to emphasize repeatedly the church’s connection to the twelve
and to declare that connection to be the predominant identity for the church. The truth was
established and proved from the writings of the apostles, the legitimacy of a congregation
was proved by her connection to those apostles, and the very nature and quality of her faith,
tradition, and teaching was determined and described as being apostolic in character.
Irenaeus’ elevation of the apostles and of apostolicity was rooted in his understanding of the
relationship between the twelve and Christ through the divine connection and empowerment
by the Holy Spirit. They and they alone served in this prophetic role, anointed with the gift
of power and perfect knowledge. Given this high view of the apostles, it is unsurprising they
occupied a place of central importance in the theology of Against Heresies.
Tertullian accepted completely the theory of the apostolic, episcopal successions as
pioneered by his predecessor. However, he steadfastly resisted expressing the church’s
character and identity with the all-encompassing apostolic vision pursued in Against
Heresies. Instead, The Prescription Against the Heretics sought to express and define the

74

Christian faith and traditions with a determinedly Christocentric identity and to present a
more subdued, organic apostolicity.
This thesis has attempted to demonstrate not only the distinguishing emphasis of
Tertullian in comparison to Irenaeus, but also the fact that the former’s subdued apostolicity
was more representative of those who preceded Irenaeus. Prior to Against Heresies, the
apostles were not frequently mentioned, and the idea of an over-arching apostolic identity of
the church and its teaching were not yet part of the vocabulary of the church. This
dramatically changed with Irenaeus, and it marked the beginning of a trend that became
increasingly leveraged by the church. In the third and especially the fourth century,
theologians from both East and West adopted the language of apostolicity. Tertullian,
however, stood in a unique position in the development of this idea. Though The
Prescription is so commonly partnered with Against Heresies as the early adopters of
apostolicity, the reality is that Tertullian was in many ways tempering the positions put forth
by his predecessor. He did not label everything with the apostolic moniker; he did not utilize
scripture simply for the very fact of its connection to the apostles; he agreed with the
strength and logic of an apostolic succession, but he did not argue for the ongoing apostolic
legitimacy based on a church’s direct connection to those apostles. On the contrary,
Tertullian, much like Justin before him, elevated Jesus at every point. It was the Lord’s
gospel, his tradition, his teachings, his institution, and even his rule of faith. Ultimately,
Tertullian’s moderated apostolicity was not embraced. What motives prompted Irenaeus’
version to be accepted instead, must be left for another study.

75

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnew, Francis, H. “The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no.1 (1986): 75-96.
Allert, Craig D. A High View of Scripture: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation
of the New Testament Canon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Amand de Mendieta, Emmanuel. The “Unwritten” and “Secret” Apostolic Traditions in
the Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,
1965.
Barnes, T.D. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985.
Barton, J. Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971.
______. “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition.” In New Testament
Apocrypha, 2 vols., edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 2:35-74. Translated by
Robert McLachlan Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Behr, John. On the Apostolic Preaching / St. Irenaeus of Lyons: A Translation and
Introduction. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.
Bienert, Wolfgang A. “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition.” In New
Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols., rev. ed., edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 2:527. Translated by Robert Mcachlan Wilson. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1991/92.
Bovon, François. “Apostolic Memories in Ancient Christianity.” In Studies in Early
Christianity, 1-16. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Bowman, Robert M. Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Guide to Doctrinal Discernment. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Brent, Allen. “Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic Succession.” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 44 (July 1993): 367-389.
Brown, H.O.J. Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

76

Burkhard, John J. Apostolicity Then and Now: An Ecumenical Church in a Postmodern
World. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Congar, Yves. Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay.
Translated by Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough. London: Burns &
Oates, 1966.
Countryman, L. “Tertullian and the Regula Fidei.” The Second Century 2, no. 4 (Winter
1982): 208-226.
Dix, Dom Gregory. “The Ministry in the Early Church.” In The Apostolic Ministry:
Essays on the History and the Doctrine of Episcopacy, edited by Kenneth E. Kirk,
183-304. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946.
Dunn, Geoffrey D. Tertullian. London: Routledge, 2004.
Dunn, James D. G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the
Character of Earliest Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 1990.
Ehrhardt, Arnold. The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church.
London: Lutterworth Press, 1953.
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never
Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Flesseman-van Leer, Ellen. Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church. Assen: van
Gorcum, 1954.
Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985.
Gonzalez, Justo L. “Athens and Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in
Tertullian.” Church History 43 (1974): 17-25.
Grant, R.M. Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments. 2nd ed.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
______. Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
______. “From Scripture to Tradition and Back.” In Perspectives on Scripture and
Tradition, edited by Joseph F. Kelly, 32-43. Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1976.
Greenslade, S.L. Early Latin Theology. London: SCM Press, 1956.
Guerra, Anthony J. “Polemical Christianity: Tertullian’s Search for Certitude.” The
Second Century 8 (1991): 109-123.
77

Hamell, Patrick J. Handbook of Patrology. New York: Alba House, 1968.
Hanson, R.P.C. Tradition in the Early Church. London: SCM, 1962.
Hayes, Chris. Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy. New York: Random
House, 2012.
Herron, Thomas J. Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement’s
First Epistle to the Corinthians. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing,
2008.
Hilhorst, A., ed. The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Hornschuh, M. “The Apostles as Bearers of the Tradition.” In New Testament Apocrypha,
2 vols., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 2:74-87. Translated by Robert
McLachlan Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Hultgren, Arland J. The Rise of Normative Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Jansen, John F. “Tertullian and the New Testament.” The Second Century 2, no. 4 (1982):
191-207.
Jefford, Clayton N. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 1996.
Kearsley, Roy. Tertullian's Theology of Divine Power. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press,
1998.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds. London: Longman, 1972.
______. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development.
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1990.
Lane, Anthony N.S. “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey.” Vox
Evangelical 9 (1975): 37-55.
Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan, 1891.
Lyman, Rebecca. Early Christian Traditions. Boston: Cowley Publications, 1999.
Mason, A.J. “Conceptions of the Church in Early Times.” In Essays on the Early History
of the Church and the Ministry, ed. H.B. Swete, 1-56. London: Macmillan,
1918.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
78

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Moffett, Samuel Hugh. A History of Christianity in Asia. 2nd rev. and corrected ed.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998.
Norris, Richard A. “Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Later Second Century.” Union
Seminary Quarterly Review 52, no. 1 (1998): 43-59.
O'Loughlin, Thomas. The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2010.
Osborn, Eric. Tertullian, The First Theologian of the West. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
______. “Reason and the Rule of Faith in the Second Century AD.” In The Making of
Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams, 40-61.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Pagels, Elaine. “Irenaeus, the ‘Canon of Truth,’ and the Gospel of John: Making a
Difference through Hermeneutics and Ritual.” Vigiliae Christianae 56, no. 4
(2002): 339-371.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Richardson, Cyril J. Early Christian Fathers. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the
Fathers Down to A.D. 325. American ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
Robinson, James M. and Helmut Koester. Trajectories through Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Robinson, J.A. “St. Irenaeus: The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. London:
SPCK, 1920.
Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976.
Streeter, B. H. The Primitive Church: Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of
the Christian Ministry: The Hewett Lectures, 1928. London: Macmillan, 1929.
Tertullian On the Testimony of the Soul and on The "Prescription" of Heretics.
Translated into English by T. Herbert Bindley. London: SPCK, 1914.
Thompson, John L. “Scripture, Tradition, and the Formation of Christian Culture: The
Theological and Pastoral Function of the History of Interpretation.” Ex Auditu 19
(2003): 24-27.
79

Thomassen, Einar. “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-century Rome.” Harvard
Theological Review 97, no. 3 (2004): 241-256.
Tjorhom, Ola. “Apostolicity and Apostolic Succession.” In The Cambridge Dictionary of
Christianity, edited by Daniel Patte, 64-65. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
Turner, C.H. “Apostolic Succession.” In Essays on the Early History of the Church and
the Ministry, edited by H.B. Swete, 93-214. London: Macmillan, 1918.
Turner, H.E.W. The Pattern of Christian Truth. London: Mowbray, 1954.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of
the First Three Centuries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Wicks, Jared. “Ecclesial Apostolicity Confessed in the Creed.” Pro Ecclesia 9 (2000):
150-164.
Wilken, Robert L. “Tertullian and the Early Christian View of Tradition.” Concordia
Theological Monthly 38 (1967): 221-233.
Williams, D.H. Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for
Suscpicious Protestants. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Williams, Rowan. “Does It Make Sense to Speak of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy?” In The
Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, edited by Rowan
Williams, 1-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

80

curriculum vitae

D. William Springer
BIOGRAPHY
Don lives with his wife Maxine, and their four daughters in North Vancouver. They
began serving at Westlynn Baptist Church shortly after Don completed his seminary
class-work, and they completed the ministry shortly before the successful defense of this
thesis. Despite the nine-year delay, there remains much love and passion for study of the
early church, particularly the second century. Other interests include hiking, reading, and
the Vancouver Whitecaps.
EDUCATION
Master of Theological Studies (History)
2002 – 2004, 2012 – 2013
ACTS Seminaries of Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)
Graduate Studies
Regent College (Vancouver, BC)

2003, 2013
1997 – 2001

Bachelor of Arts (Biblical Studies)
Columbia Bible College (Abbotsford, BC)
EXPERIENCE
Senior Pastor
Westlynn Baptist Church (North Vancouver, BC)
Interim Pastor
Maple Ridge Church of the Nazarene (Maple Ridge, BC)

July 2005 – Oct 2013
Jan 2005 – Jun 2005

Research Assistant
2002 – 2004
Religious Studies Department, Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)
ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS & CONFERENCES
Mennonite Graduate Student Conference (Elkhart, IN)
Presentation on the role of tradition in Tertullian’s Prescription.
Lectures at Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)
Lectures on early Apostolic Succession; Byzantine Christianity.

Jun 2004
2003 – 2004

AWARDS AND HONOURS
● Travel Bursary, Mennonite Graduate Student Conference, 2004
● Dean’s list, Columbia Bible College Graduation, 2001.
● Various Bursaries & scholarships, Columbia Bible College, 1998-2000

81