Since therefore we have such proofs,
it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain
from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in
a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously 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; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account
are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church
with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For
how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important
question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches
with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is
certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if
the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary,
[in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to
those to whom they did commit the Churches? (Against Heresies 3.4.1 [ANF
1:416-17])
At first glance, someone might think
that Irenaeus is exclaiming that he is glad to have the writings of the
apostles, since it is hard to imagine what one would do without them. But upon
closer examination that is not what Irenaeus is saying. Since he follows with:
"Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the
tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?,"
we know that he is saying that the first recourse is to the Tradition that they
handed down to the Churches, since such Tradition would be the only thing available
if the apostles had not written anything. (Robert A. Sungenis, "A Critique
of Keith Mathison's Book: 'The Shape of Sola Scriptura,'" p. 10)
