Note: Click here for a list of the abbreviations used in the bibliographical citations.
Outline.
2. The Proper Role of Tradition.
2.1. The Improper Role of Tradition.
2.2. Unwritten Oral Traditions?
3. The Sufficiency of Scripture.
4. The Perspicuity of Scripture.
5. The Necessity of Private Interpretation.
6. Endnotes (Additional Testimony).1. What is Sola Scriptura? Return to Outline.
What Sola Scriptura is not → The Bible is the only source for theology.
What Sola Scriptura is → The Bible is the only infallible source for theology. [1.]
Tony Lane:
It is popularly supposed that sola scriptura (i.e. ‘Scripture alone’) was one of the slogans of the sixteenth-century Reformation. In fact the slogan emerged at a later date, but it can be seen as encapsulating a key idea of the Reformation. What was that idea? The Reformers certainly did not see the Bible as the sole source or resource in doing theology. They made considerable use of earlier teaching, such as that of Augustine. They did not regard the Bible as the sole authority since they were very ready to draw up new confessions of faith which had authority in their churches. The key point, though, was that all of these resources and authorities were subordinate to the authority of Scripture and were to be tested by it.
(Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christians Believe, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014], p. 14.)
Anthony (Tony) Lane:
Stated differently, sola Scriptura is the statement that the church can err. Tradition and the teaching office of the church are unavoidable and invaluable resources. They have a real authority—but not a final authority. Karl Barth expressed it well when he affirmed the authority of both church and tradition, seeing them both in the light of the Fifth Commandment, to honour our father and mother. This authority is real but limited, in that both are subject to the Word and therefore to Scripture. They are open to be reformed and corrected, while Scripture is not. In the words of the traditional formula, Scripture is the norma normans non normata, the norm or rule that rules but is not itself ruled.
(Anthony N. S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan;” In: A Pathway Into the Holy Scripture, eds. Philip E. Satterthwaite, David F. Wright, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994], p. 324.)
Gavin Ortlund:
…the church can err and therefore must continually measure her doctrine and practice by the infallible words of Holy Scripture.
(Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024], p. 85.) Preview.Cf. Gavin Ortlund:
Protestantism does not reject tradition or other authoritative norms in the church. It simply subordinates them under the superior authority of Scripture.
(Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024], pp. 219-220.)
Francis Turretin:
II. On the state of the question keep in mind: (1) that the question does not concern any kind of judgment (i.e., whether any judgment belongs to the church and its officers in controversies of faith). The orthodox refute the charge made against them by their practice. Rather the question concerns only the supreme and infallible judgment by which everything must necessarily stand or fall—whether this belongs to the Scriptures themselves (as we hold) or to some man or assembly composed of men (as the papists maintain).
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992], 2.20.2, p. 154.)
Michael F. Bird:
…the Reformers had a slogan of sola scriptura (“scripture alone”) as the ultimate authority in the churches. Yet when the Reformers spoke of sola scriptura, they meant the Bible illuminated by the Spirit in the matrix of the church. Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura (“the bare scripture”). The Protestant confessions are indebted to the ecumenical councils and patristic theologies in every respect. Thus the Reformers’ use of Scripture is more tantamount to suprema scriptura. This means that the Bible is our primary authority, but not our only authority.
(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], 1.6.2.4, pp. 68-69. Cf. Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit: Authority & Method in Theology, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 193.)
John Jefferson Davis:
Sola scriptura meant the primacy of scripture as a theological norm over all tradition rather than the total rejection of tradition. Creeds, confessions, and councils were to be received insofar as they were consistent with scripture.
(John Jefferson Davis, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984], p. 227.)
Wafiq Wahba:
The Reformers’ affirmation of sola Scriptura did not imply a rejection of all church traditions. To the contrary, they affirmed the value and the validity of the ecumenical councils, the creeds of the early church, and patristic teaching and writings. For the Reformers, agreement with the early church was proof of the true catholicity and legitimacy of the Reformation. The sola Scriptura principle implies an adherence to the original tradition, unmixed with foreign elements. It meant the primacy of Scripture as a theological norm over all traditions, rather than the total rejection of tradition. Creeds, church councils, and patristic teachings were to be received insofar as they were consistent with Scripture. Since tradition is always in danger of becoming legalistic and falsifying the transmission of the gospel, the correct use of tradition must be guided according to the source and standard of the Christian tradition, viz., Scripture. From that perspective, the gospel message not only liberates us from the false use of tradition, but also liberates us to use it rightly.
(Wafiq Wahba, “The Ecumenical Responsibility of Reformed Theology: The Case of Egypt;” In: Toward the Future of Reformed Theology: Tasks, Topics, Traditions, eds. David Willis, Michael Welker, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], pp. 92-93.)
Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:
…sola scriptura does not mean nuda scriptura . . . the final authority of Scripture does not equal a disregarding of all authorities except the Bible.
(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 163.)
Cf. Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:
However helpful tradition is (and many evangelicals hold great respect for tradition), the ruling principle is that Scripture interprets tradition rather than that tradition interprets Scripture.
(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 133.)Martin Luther:
Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither homed nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.
I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.
(Martin Luther, “The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms on the Fifth Day after Misericordias Domini [April 18] In the Name of Jesus;” In: Luther’s Works: American Edition: Volume 33: Career of the Reformer, ed. George W. Forell, [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958], pp. 112-113.)
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. …As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 82.1.3 [To Jerome]; PL, 33:277; trans. NPNF1, 1:350.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: Click here for more on Augustine and Sola Scriptura.
2. The Proper Role of Tradition. Return to Outline.
Jaroslav Pelikan:
Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name. The reformers of every age, whether political or religious or literary, have protested against the tyranny of the dead, and in doing so have called for innovation and insight in place of tradition.
(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities, [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984], p. 65.)
N. T. Wright:
All churches have jokes about the power of tradition. How many Anglicans (or Methodists, or Baptists, or Roman Catholics . . . or whatever you like) does it take to change a light bulb? Five, comes the answer: one to change the bulb, and four to talk about how good the old bulb was.
(Tom Wright, Matthew for Everyone: Part 1: Chapters 1-15, [London: SPCK, 2004], on Matthew 15:1-9, p. 192.)
The proper role of tradition → Tradition is an authority, just as nations have authority over their citizens (Cf. Rom. 13:1-2; 1Pe. 2:13-14; Mat. 22:20-22; 1Ti. 2:1-2; Jhn. 19:11) and parents have authority over their children (Cf. Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20; Luke 2:49-51; Exo. 20:12; Deu. 5:16, 21:18-21), yet if a parent commands their child to steal, lie or murder the child is not to obey (submit to the authority of) their parents in this. Why? Because the authority of the parents (a legitimate authority) is derived from, and subordinate to, the Word of God. So too with tradition. [2.] Traditions are authoritative (binding upon the conscience) only in-so-far as they are consistent with the holy Scriptures. [3.] Just as each individual child must judge for themselves whether or not the commands of their parents have violated God’s law, so too must each individual do the same with the authority of the Church. [4.] Note: For more on this see §. 5. The Necessity of Private Interpretation (below).
Karl Barth:
All that we have still to say about the authority of the Church itself can be understood in the light of the commandment in Ex. 2012: “Honour thy father and thy mother.” Obviously there can be no conflict between this commandment and the first: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.” What it demands is self-evidently limited by the first commandment. But the dignity of what it demands is not reduced and lessened by the demand of the first commandment. On the contrary, because the first commandment is valid, in its own sphere the commandment to honour father and mother is also valid. …there is an authority of the Church which does not involve any contradiction or revolt against the authority of Jesus Christ, which can only confirm the disciplina Dei, and which for its part is not negated by the authority of Jesus Christ, by the disciplina Dei, but is established, confirmed and yet also defined and delimited by it. …Under the Word and therefore under Holy Scripture the Church does have and exercise genuine authority.
(Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God: Second Half-Volume, eds. G. W. Bromiley, T. F. Torrance, trans. G. T. Thomson, Harold Knight, [Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1963], pp. 585, 586, 586.) [5.]
Cf. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England: Article: XX. The Authority of the Church:
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
(The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, Article 20; trans. Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes: In Three Volumes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], p. 500.) See also: ccel.org.
Paul Strawn:
The concept of a contemporaneous existence of the Word of God in a corrupted verbal form, and a pure written form, spawned Chemnitz’s explanation of traditiones in the second locus, De traditionibus. Here he lists the first of eight different types of traditiones as Scripture itself, i.e. the things that Christ and the Apostles preached orally and were later written down. Then follows: 2) the faithful transmission of the Scriptures; 3) the oral tradition of the Apostles (which by its very nature must agree with the contents of the New Testament canon); 4) the proper interpretation of the Scriptures received from the Apostles and “Apostolic men”; 5) dogmas that are not set forth in so many words in Scripture but are clearly apparent from a sampling of texts; 6) the consensus of true and pure antiquity; 7) rites and customs that are edifying and believed to be Apostolic, but cannot be proved from Scripture. Chemnitz rejects only the eighth kind of tradition: [8] traditions pertaining to faith and morals that cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture; but which the Council of Trent commanded to be accepted and venerated with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture. The important element of this last of the traitiones appears not to be the fact that such traditions of faith and morals not provable from Scripture actually existed, but that their status of equality with Scripture was foisted upon the church by the Council of Trent.
(Paul Strawn, “Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz;” In: Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. David C. Steinmetz, [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999], pp. 213-214.)
Note: For more on the proper and improper use of tradition see: Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], Second Topic: Concerning Traditions, pp. 217-307.
Oliver D. Crisp:
…I offer the following principles concerning matters of theological authority that, taken together, form a consistent whole:
Scripture is the norma normans, the principium theologiae. It is the final arbiter of matters theological for Christians as the particular place in which God reveals himself to his people. This is the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.
Catholic creeds, as defined by an ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata, which have second-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.
Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesial bodies are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.
The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church.
The ascending order of norma normata, including theologoumena at the very bottom of this hierarchy of doctrine, are all norms that are subordinate to the authority of Scripture. And, on my way of thinking, the descending order of subordinate norms has a doctrinal value and status equivalent to the place each possesses in that descending order.
…Scripture alone is the final arbiter in matters of doctrine, but (somewhat paradoxically) Scripture is never alone. It is always read within the context of a given ecclesial community, which is, as it were, surrounded by a great cloud of theological witnesses and informed by the Christian tradition.
(Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology, [London: T & T Clark, 2009], pp. 17, 17-18.)
Robert Letham:
Sola Scriptura, a post-Reformation slogan, was intended to assert that the Bible is the supreme authority in the church. As the Westminster Confession stated, Scripture is the supreme rule of faith and practice. In contrast, all church synods and councils may err and so are not to be made the rule of faith and practice, but are merely a help. In this way, it is the Bible that sits in judgment on the church; the church can never sit in judgment on the Word of God.
However, the Bible was given by God to the church. It is to be read, preached, believed, and followed in the church’s life and ministry. As a general guide to the varied levels of authority, with Scripture as the supreme court of appeal… The various books of the Bible were produced by prophets, apostles, and others who themselves were part of the church, as they were moved, consciously or unconsciously, by the Holy Spirit. There is an inseparable interplay between the revelation of God in Jesus Christ the Son—the head of the church—the words he enabled to be written in witness to this stupendous fact, and the ongoing direction and interpretation of this canon.
(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], pp. 240-241.)
Alister E. McGrath:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgement is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers’ understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment.
(Alister E. McGrath, The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], pp. 129-130.)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:
What you have as heritage, Take now as task; For thus you will make it your own [Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, Erwirb es, um es zu besitzen]!
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: First Part: A Bantam Dual-Language Book, trans. Peter Salm, [New York: Bantam Books, 1962], Lines 682-683, p. 44; trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition, [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984], p. 82. Cf. Idem, p. v.)
2.1. The Improper Role of Tradition. Return to Outline.
Martin Chemnitz:
This topic of the papalists is very far-reaching, embracing in its bosom whatever the papalist church transmits and preserves of things which cannot be taught and proved with testimonies of Scripture. It is truly a Pandora’s box, under whose cover every kind of corruption, abuse, and superstition has been brought into the church. For what fiction will not be allowed if once this postulate is granted, that proof and confirmation from the Scripture are not necessary? What error shall we refute if the antiquity of error and the multitude of the erring can lend protection to error? This, indeed, the papalists aim at with their disputation concerning traditions, that the abuses which have crept into the church outside of and contrary to the rule of Scripture, if only they are widely spread and have been confirmed by the pretext that they are old, shall have the title not only of church custom but, what is more, of apostolic tradition.
(Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], The Second Topic, Examination §. 1, p. 219.)
Philip Schaff:
…whilst we readily allow that the curse of sects is to be ascribed, in large part, to the contempt of Church authority and the abuses of protestant liberty, we must decidedly reject the allegation, that tradition alone, and that in the Romish sense as an infallible judge of scripture, forms a sufficient remedy for the cure of this disease. The prescription at best leaves us where we were before, if it bring us not into a plight still worse. For tradition itself is capable also of various interpretations, and to a greater extent indeed than the bible, in proportion as the writings in which it is to be found are of greater compass. It is prodigious injustice, to ascribe all clearness to man’s word, and all darkness to the word of God. The history of the Church besides informs us plainly, that different sects have stayed themselves on tradition as well as upon the holy scriptures. This was done, for instance, by the Gnostics, and again by the Arians at the council of Antioch; also by the Artemonites, who according to Eusebius affirmed, that their error with regard to the person of Christ had been held by the apostles and the whole Church down to the time of the Roman bishop Victor, and was first exchanged for a different view under his successor Zephyrinus. It is known too that different views still prevail in the Church of Rome, without loss of orthodoxy, on several by no means unimportant articles of the Tridentine system; and it is owing only to the outward force she employs to restrain all tendencies of the more free sort, as in the case of Jansenism and Hermesianism, that these differences come not to more open contradiction and collision. In this way however, the disease is not cured, but only covered over; to break forth the more dangerously again, in its own time. Such tyranny over the conscience and against free inquiry, is contrary in the view of our Church to the free nature and spiritual constitution of the gospel. As little as the present, so sadly divided condition of the Evangelical Church may be considered her proper normal and perfect state, it still forms an advance as compared with the posture of the Church of Rome, to which the crisis is still future. What vital energy must not Protestantism possess, to endure so long, and renew its youth continually, in spite of such distraction!
(Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism: As Related to the Present State of the Church, trans. John W. Nevin, [Chambersburg: Publication Office of the German Reformed Church, 1845], pp. 92-93.)2.2. Unwritten Oral Traditions? Return to Outline.
William Goode:
The New Testament Scriptures may justly be called apostolical tradition. But as to the oral tradition or teaching of the apostles, it is evident, that, however infallible it may be in itself, we can only have a fallible report of it through fallible men…
(William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged: In Three Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Hatchard & Co,. 1853], p. 14.)
Cf. William Goode:
Our opponents contend that in the writings that remain to us of the early church there is to be found another record of it upon which we can also fully depend. The very question at issue, then, is, whether any patristical testimony, to be found in these writings, can be considered as an authoritative record of the oral teaching of the apostles. To represent it, therefore, as being, in the strict sense of the terms, apostolical tradition, and represent us as unwilling to receive the oral teaching of the apostles, is to take an unfair advantage of the reader, and to assume the very point in question. It isa report of it delivered by men uninspired, and liable to error and mistake in transmitting the doctrines of the oral teaching which they heard. The New Testament Scriptures may justly be called apostolical tradition. But as to the oral tradition or teaching of the apostles, it is evident, that, however infallible it may be in itself, we can only have a fallible report of it through fallible men, and that, in fact, the report we do possess of it is very imperfect, and on many accounts open to just suspicion. And hence it is clear, that when any who lived long after the apostles are said to be taught anything or to judge of anything by apostolical tradition, the phrase “apostolical tradition” either must mean the Scriptures which the apostles have left, or is applied in a limited sense; for if it is applied to anything but Holy Scripture, it refers to the patristical report of apostolical teaching; and the reader who keeps this in view will at once see the ground on which he stands,—that it is the ground of human and not divine authority.
(William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged: In Three Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Hatchard & Co,. 1853], p. 14.)
Martin Chemnitz:
Andrada and his friends will object that it is an intolerable insult that their traditions are compared with those of the Pharisees and Jews. They will say that the Pharisees and the later rabbis invented and fabricated their traditions, but that the traditions of the papalists were received from the apostles themselves, preserved through a sure and continuous succession of bishops, and handed down to our times from hand to hand. However, the Jews will by no means concede that they have their traditions without reliable authority, through the inventions of men. They fabricate a long, continuous line of unbroken succession, according to which the traditions are said to have been given by God Himself, received by Moses, transmitted in good faith to posterity, and handed down from hand to hand. And if the Talmud had not been written beforehand, I would surely have thought that the rabbis had taken this theory over from the papalists and had accommodated it to their traditions. For so great is the similarity that there can be no doubt that both the fictions of the Talmudists and of the papalists concerning traditions have one and the same architect and maker, namely, him who sows and mixes tares with the good seed.
(Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], 1.3.5, p. 67.)
3. The Sufficiency of Scripture. Return to Outline.
What sufficiency is not → The Scriptures contain all things.
What sufficiency is → The Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation. [6.]
Note: This point (i.e. the material sufficiency of Scripture) has historically been rejected by most post-Tridentine Roman Catholics. [7.]
Richard Hooker:
There are two opinions concerning the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each opposite to the other, but both repugnant to the truth. Rome teaches Scripture to be so insufficient that, without adding traditions, it would not contain all revealed and supernatural truth necessary for salvation. Others, rightly condemning this view, fall into the opposite ditch—just as dangerous—thinking that Scripture contains not only all things necessary for salvation, but indeed simply all things, such that to do anything according to any other law is not only unnecessary to salvation but unlawful, sinful, and downright damnable. But whatever is spoken of God or things pertaining to God other than the truth, even if it seems like an honor, is actually an injury. And just as exaggerated praises given to men often turn out to diminish and damage their well-deserved reputations, so we must likewise beware lest, in attributing too much to Scripture, such unbelievable claims cause even those virtues which Scripture truly possesses to be less reverently esteemed. I therefore leave them to consider whether they might not have overshot their mark here. God knows this can happen to the best of us, even when we mean well, as I am very much persuaded they do.
(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 2.8.7; In: The Library of Early English Protestantism: The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: In Modern English: Volume 1: Preface–Book IV, eds. Bradford Littlejohn, et al., [Lincoln: The Davenant Institute, 2019], p. 150.) [8.]
4. The Perspicuity of Scripture. Return to Outline.
What perspicuity is not → The belief that everything taught in the bible is clear and easily understood by all.
What perspicuity is → The belief that those things necessary to salvation (i.e. the Gospel) are clearly taught in the Bible and are understandable by both the learned and the unlearned alike. [9.]
Note: Click here for more on the Gospel (Historical Creeds).
Note: Click here for additional information on the Rule of Faith (Tradition).A. A. Hodge:
We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], p. 91.)
Note: The emphasis is on essential (i.e. the Gospel).
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
(Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7; In: Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines: Eighth Edition, [Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1857], p. 15.) [10.]
Cf. James Callahan:
Phrases such as “not alike plain,” “not alike clear,” “due use of ordinary means” and “sufficient understanding” help temper what otherwise might appear to be a simplistic and unsuspecting affirmation of clarity from certain Christians (evangelical Protestants, that is). The Westminster Confession also helps focus our attention on what Scripture is about, its message—salvation—to be known, believed and observed. Scripture is filled with details of great variety. Some are admittedly simple and others consciously mysterious, yet not all are clear, even to the learned. And even though “ordinary means” are employed, this is no guarantee: “nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.”
(James Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture: History, Theology & Contemporary Literary Studies, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001], p. 10.)
Francis Turretin:
II. As to the state of the question, observe: (1) The question does not concern the perspicuity or the obscurity of the subject or of persons. For we do not deny that the Scriptures are obscure to unbelievers and the unrenewed, to whom Paul says his gospel is hid (2 Cor. 4:3). Also we hold that the Spirit of illumination is necessary to make them intelligible to believers. Rather the question concerns the obscurity or perspicuity of the object or of the Scriptures (i.e., whether they are so obscure that the believer cannot apprehend them for salvation without the authority and judgment of the church—which we deny).
…V. The question is not whether things essential to salvation are everywhere in the Scriptures perspicuously revealed. We acknowledge that there are some things hard to be understood (dysnoēta) and intended by God to exercise our attention and mental powers. The question is whether things essential to salvation are anywhere revealed, at least so that the believer can by close meditation ascertain their truth (because nothing can be drawn out of the more obscure passages which may not be found elsewhere in the plainest terms).
…VI. The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. We only wish to proscribe the darkness which would prevent the people from reading the Scriptures as hurtful and perilous and compel them to have recourse to tradition when they might rest in the Scriptures alone.
VII. The question then comes to this—whether the Scriptures are so plain in things essential to salvation (not as to the things delivered, but as to the mode of delivery; not as to the subject, but the object) that without the external aid of tradition or the infallible judgment of the church, they may be read and understood profitably by believers. The papists deny this; we affirm it.
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992], 2.17.2, 5-7, pp. 143-144.)
Herman Bavinck:
The doctrine of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture has frequently been misunderstood and misrepresented, both by Protestants and Catholics. It does not mean that the matters and subjects with which Scripture deals are not mysteries that far exceed the reach of the human intellect. Nor does it assert that Scripture is clear in all its parts, so that no scientific exegesis is needed, or that, also in its doctrine of salvation, Scripture is plain and clear to every person without distinction. It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest. The way of salvation, not as it concerns the matter itself but as it concerns the mode of transmission, has been clearly set down there for the reader desirous of salvation. While that reader may not understand the “how” (πως) of it, the “that” (ὁτι) is clear.
(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], §. 125, p. 477.)
G. C. Berkouwer:
The Reformation was not dealing with the words by themselves, but with the message in Scripture of which the words spoke. This clarity of the message presupposes the accessibility of the words, but that accessibility was not the subject of the real purpose of the confession. According to the Reformers, the force behind this connection of message and words was the power of the Spirit. For that reason the confession of perspicuity is not a statement in general concerning the human language of Scripture, but a confession concerning the perspicuity of the gospel in Scripture.
(G. C. Berkouwer, Studies In Dogmatics: Holy Scripture, trans. Jack B. Rogers, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975], p. 275.)
Christian Smith:
…what comes to the fore as key is not everything conceivable that the Bible apparently speaks to, but the gospel of Jesus Christ. All of scripture is not clear, nor does it need to be. But the real matter of scripture is clear, “the deepest secret of all,” that God in Christ has come to earth, lived, taught, healed, died, and risen to new life, so that we too can rise to life in him. On that, the Bible is clear.
(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], p. 132.)
John Barton:
On the face of it, Erasmus was of course in the right in maintaining that the Bible had obscurities. …When Luther insists against Erasmus that the Bible is not obscure or dark but plain and clear, it is important to notice that he does not mean by ‘the Bible’ or ‘Scripture’ exactly what Erasmus meant: this long and complex text, with so many obviously obscure passages. Indeed, he does not precisely say that ‘Scripture’ is clear. He says that the res scripturae, the ‘matter’ of Scripture, is clear, and he glosses this as follows:
What kind of deep secret can still be hidden in the Scripture, now that the seals have been opened, the stone rolled away from the grave, and the deepest secret of all revealed: that Christ, the only Son of God, has become man, that there is one eternal God in three persons, that Christ has died for us, and that he reigns for ever in heaven?
What is clear, we may say, is not exactly ‘Scripture’ but ‘the gospel’ – ‘the rule of faith’, as we may recall it was sometimes called in the early Church.
Luther’s polemic is not really directed against the idea that some places in the Bible are difficult to interpret, but against the idea that it is in biblical interpretation – and hence through a hermeneutical tradition, watched over by the ecclesia docens – that Christian truth is made known. On the contrary, he argues, the Christian gospel has been made plain by God himself, it does not lie encoded in a book. This gospel exists before and apart from any instantiation in the words of the text.
(John Barton, People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity: New Edition, [London: SPCK, 1995], p. 85.)
Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):
We should not suppose that the essence of the Gospel is in the words rather than in the actual meaning of Scripture, or on the surface rather than in the inmost parts, or in the leaves of mere words rather than in the root of reason.
(Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Galatians, 1.11-12; trans. FC, 121:78-79.)
Richard Bauckham:
The notion of the formal sufficiency of Scripture does not, of course, mean that Scripture requires no interpretation at all—a motion which anti-Protestant writers have frequently and easily refuted, thus missing the point—but that it requires no normative interpretation. Protestant interpretation of Scripture employed all the ordinary means of interpreting a text, especially the tools that humanist scholarship had developed for interpreting ancient texts, and respected the views of theologians and exegetes of the past as useful, but not normative, guides to understanding Scripture. The real difference between the classic Protestant and the classic Roman Catholic views lies in the Protestant rejection of the view that tradition, expressed in the teaching of the magisterium, possesses a binding authority against which there can be no appeal to Scripture. Behind this difference lie, on the one hand, the Reformation’s originating experience of a rediscovery of the gospel in Scripture apart from and in contradiction to the teaching of the contemporary church and, on the other hand, the Roman Catholic trust in God’s promise to maintain God’s church in the truth. On the one hand, tradition was ruptured by an experience of discontinuity between Scripture and the contemporary church, while, on the other hand, an unbroken tradition remained the vehicle of continuity between the teaching of the apostles and that of the contemporary church.
(Richard Bauckham, God and the Crisis of Freedom: Biblical and Contemporary Perspectives, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002], 5: Authority and Tradition, pp. 95-96. Cf. Richard Bauckham, “Tradition in Relation to Scripture and Reason;” In: Scripture, Tradition and Reason: A Study in the Criteria of Christian Doctrine, eds. Richard Bauckham, Benjamin Drewery, [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], pp. 123-124.)
Charles Hodge:
§ 5. Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment.
The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.
It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.
It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i.e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.
What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.
The arguments in support of the former of these positions have already been presented in the discussion concerning the infallibility of the Church. The most obvious reasons in support of the right of private judgment are, —
1. That the obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men.
2. The Scriptures are everywhere addressed to the people, and not to the officers of the Church either exclusively, or specially. The prophets were sent to the people, and constantly said, “Hear, O Israel,” “Hearken, O ye people.” Thus, also, the discourses of Christ were addressed to the people, and the people heard him gladly. All the Epistles of the New Testament are addressed to the congregation, to the “called of Jesus Christ;” “to the beloved of God;” to those “called to be saints;” “to the sanctified in Christ Jesus;” “to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord;” “to the saints which are in (Ephesus), and to the faithful in Jesus Christ;” or “to the saints and faithful brethren which are in (Colosse);” and so in every instance. It is the people who are addressed. To them are directed these profound discussions of Christian doctrine, and these comprehensive expositions of Christian duty. They are everywhere assumed to be competent to understand what is written, and are everywhere required to believe and obey what thus came from the inspired messengers of Christ. They were not referred to any other authority from which they were to learn the true import of these inspired instructions. It is, therefore, not only to deprive the people of a divine right, to forbid the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves; but it is also to interpose between them and God, and to prevent their hearing his voice, that they may listen to the words of men.
The People commanded to search the Scriptures.
3. The Scriptures are not only addressed to the people, but the people were called upon to study them, and to teach them unto their children. It was one of the most frequently recurring injunctions to parents under the old dispensation, to teach the Law unto their children, that they again might teach it unto theirs. The “holy oracles” were committed to the people, to be taught by the people; and taught immediately out of the Scriptures, that the truth might be retained in its purity. Thus our Lord commanded the people to search the Scriptures, saying, “They are they which testify of me.” (John v. 39.) He assumed that they were able to understand what the Old Testament said of the Messiah, although its teachings had been misunderstood by the scribes and elders, and by the whole Sanhedrim. Paul rejoiced that Timothy had from his youth known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. He said to the Galatians (i. 8, 9), “Though we, or an angel from heaven, — if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” This implies two things, — first, that the Galatian Christians, the people, had a right to sit in judgment on the teaching of an Apostle, or of an angel from heaven; and secondly, that they had an infallible rule by which that judgment was to be determined, namely, a previous authenticated revelation of God. If, then, the Bible recognizes the right of the people to judge of the teaching of Apostles and angels, they are not to be denied the right of judging of the doctrines of bishops and priests. The principle laid down by the Apostle is precisely that long before given by Moses (Deut. xiii. 1-3), who tells the people that if a prophet should arise, although he worked wonders, they were not to believe or obey him, if he taught them anything contrary to the Word of God. This again assumes right to judge, and that the people had the ability and the right to judge, and that they had an infallible rule of judgment. It implies, moreover, that their salvation depended upon their judging rightly. For if they allowed these false teachers, robed in sacred vestments, and surrounded by the insignia of authority, to lead them from the truth, they would inevitably perish.
4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty. If the Bible be admitted to be the infallible rule of faith and practice in accordance with which men are bound on the peril of their souls, to frame their creed and conduct; and if there be a set of men who have the exclusive right of interpreting the Scripture, and who are authorized to impose their interpretations on the people as of divine authority, then they may impose on them what conditions of salvation they see fit. And the men who have the salvation of the people in their hands are their absolute masters. Both reason and experience fully sustain the dictum of Chillingworth, when he says, “He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his by his lawyers.” This is precisely what the Church of Rome has done, and thereby established a tyranny for which there is no parallel in the history of the world. What renders this tyranny the more intolerable, is, that, so far as the mass of the people is concerned, it resolves itself into the authority of the parish priest. He is the arbiter of the faith and morals of his people. No man can believe unless the ground of faith is present to his mind. If the people are to believe that the Scriptures teach certain doctrines, then they must have the evidence that such doctrines are really taught in the Bible. If that evidence be that the Church so interprets the sacred writings, then the people must know what is the Church, i.e., which of the bodies claiming to be the Church, is entitled to be so regarded. How are the people, the uneducated masses, to determine that question? The priest tells them. If they receive his testimony on that point, then how can they tell how the Church interprets the Scriptures? Here again they must take the word of the priest. Thus the authority of the Church as an interpreter, which appears so imposing, resolves itself into the testimony of the priest, who is often wicked, and still oftener ignorant. This cannot be the foundation of the faith of God’s elect. That foundation is the testimony of God himself speaking his word, and authenticated as divine by the testimony of the Spirit with and by the truth in the heart of the believer.
(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1883], pp. 183-187.) See also: ccel.org and monergism.com. [11.]
5. The Necessity of Private Interpretation. Return to Outline.
Gavin Ortlund:
…while erroneous private judgment is a real danger, another danger is far worse: erroneous ecclesiastical judgments. It is one thing to be able to err; it is another to be yoked to error.
(Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024], p. 100.)
The necessity of private interpretation → If a Roman Catholic believes that the Roman Church is infallible they do so solely upon the conviction of their own fallible ability to reason and discern truth (i.e. private judgment).
A. A. Hodge:
Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], p. 91.) See also: monergism.com.
Cf. A. A. Hodge:
The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostolicity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.)—“Cat. of Council of Trent,” Part I., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity upon the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he cannot rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear.
Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], pp. 91-92.)George Salmon:
That submission to the Church of Rome rests ultimately on an act of private judgment is unmistakeably evident, when a Romanist tries (as he has no scruple in doing) to make a convert of you or any other member of our Church. What does he then ask you to do but to decide that the religion of your fathers is wrong; that the teachers and instructors of your childhood were all wrong; that the clergy to whom you have looked up as best able to guide you are all mistaken and have been leading you in a way which must end in your eternal destruction? Well, if you come to the conclusion to reject all the authority which you have reverenced from your childhood, is not that a most audacious exercise of private judgment? But suppose you come to the opposite conclusion, and decide on staying where you were, would not a Romanist have a right to laugh at you, if you said that you were not using your private judgment then; that to change one’s religion indeed is an act of private judgment, but that one who continues in his father’s religion is subject to none of the risks to which every exercise of private judgment is liable? Well, it is absurd to imagine that logic has one rule for Roman Catholics and another for us; that it would be an exercise of private judgment in them to change their religion, but none if they continue in what their religious teachers have told them. An act of our judgment must be the ultimate foundation of all our beliefs.
(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: Fourth Edition, [Searcy: James D. Bales, 1948; original - London: John Murray, 1914], pp. 48-49.) See also: books.google.com (1914 ed.). [12.]
W. H. Griffith Thomas:
The ultimate court of appeal must of necessity be the spiritually enlightened judgment of the individual Christian with reference to any and every matter of truth and conscience. This is the inalienable right of the individual, whether like the Protestant he exercises it continually and directly from the Bible, or whether like the Roman Catholic he exercises it once for all in deciding to submit himself to an external organisation which he believes to be an infallible guide.
(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God: Second Impression, [Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Ass’n, 1913], p. 219.)
Cecil John Cadoux:
Since in order to become or to remain a Roman Catholic, it is necessary to accept the infallibility of the Pope, and since a great initial act of private judgment is necessary as the prius and basis of such acceptance, it follows that one cannot bow to the infallible authority of Church or Pope, without having first bowed to one’s own.
(Cecil John Cadoux, Catholicism and Christianity: A Vindication of Progressive Protestantism, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928], p. 126.)
Max Müller:
We have to choose, once for all, between freedom and slavery of judgment; and though I do not wish to argue with those who prefer slavery to freedom, yet I may remind them that, even in choosing slavery, they follow their own private judgment quite as much as others do in choosing freedom. In claiming infallibility for popes and councils, they claim in reality far greater infallibility for themselves.
(Max Müller, “Freedom of Religious Discussion;” In: The Forum: Vol. XI, [New York: The Forum Publishing Co., 1891], p. 39.)
Thomas Carlyle:
The sorriest sophistical Bellarmine, preaching sightless faith and passive obedience, must first, by some kind of conviction, have abdicated his right to be convinced. His “private judgment” indicated that, as the advisablest step he could take. The right of private judgment will subsist, in full force, wherever true men subsist. A true man believes with his whole judgment, with all the illumination and discernment that is in him, and has always so believed. A false man, only struggling to “believe that he believes,” will naturally manage it in some other way. Protestantism said to this latter, Woe! and to the former, Well done! At bottom, it was no new saying; it was a return to all old sayings that ever had been said. Be genuine, be sincere: that was, once more, the meaning of it. Mohammed believed with his whole mind; Odin with his whole mind,—he and all true followers of Odinism. They, by their private judgment, had “judged”—so.
(Thomas Carlyle, Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, [New York: John B. Alden, 1885], Lecture IV: The Hero as Priest, p. 120.)
Edward Longman:
The Reformation, namely, established the principle of private judgment in matters of religion. Even converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism exercise that Protestant right, by resolving to change from one religious profession to another. Roman Catholic propaganda is, then, simply one of the natural effects of the freedom which resulted from the Reformation.
(Edward Longman, “Discussions: ‘Roman Catholicism in England’;” In: The Hibbert Journal: Volume XXII: October 1923–July 1924, [Boston: Leroy Phillips, 1924], p. 797.)
John Oman:
The true philosophy may be that God has not given us the power to solve our own difficulties, but has appointed us a supreme, divinely taught teacher, and holy infallible guide in life. But that would in no way rid us of dependence on the intellect, though it might save us the necessity of exercising any further our own spiritual insight. The duty of inquiring into the merit of any who might claim to be such a teacher and guide, would be entirely a task for the intellect. Only inquiry could satisfy us that we need not inquire further. Only on recognizing the true, may we lay down our task of searching further for truth, and, only on being satisfied that we have found the holy, are we justified in submitting to its guidance.
(John Oman, Vision and Authority: Or the Throne of St. Peter, [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902], p. 67.)
William A. Curtis:
Even Rome cannot evade the awkward circumstance that, after all, our acceptance of the pope as in any character and capacity infallible depends in the last resort upon an exercise of individual conscience and private judgment. ‘How otherwise,’ wrote Mivart to Cardinal Vaughan in 1900, ‘could we know that authority had spoken at all, or what it had said?’ Before the soul has any right to fling itself into arms extended to receive it in its quest of truth and peace, it must first convince itself that the arms are everlasting and that the proffered bosom is divine.
(William A. Curtis, “Infallibility;” In: Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Volume VII: Hymns–Liberty, eds. James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915], 276.) [13.]
G. G. Coulton:
The man who calls upon others to follow his lead unquestioningly in the highest matters that humanity can deal with, is in effect claiming infallibility. He does not mend matters by saying it is the church which is infallible, so long as he persists in defining the church as the body of those who think with himself; and this, in the last analysis, is what the strict catholic theory comes to. There is little difference between the theory of individual infallibility and that of infallibility in partnership.
(G. G. Coulton, Christ, St Francis and To-Day, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1919], pp. 124-125.)
Charles F. D’arcy:
A crucial illustration of the moral and intellectual situation which thus comes into being is the position of one who in our time deliberately submits himself to the authority of the Papal See. Here the claim to infallibility is urged with all the parade of great pretensions. If a mind is merely overwhelmed by these pretensions, or yields through moral weariness, the decision has no spiritual value whatever. Only when there is conviction and deliberate choice can the action be morally justified. But this conviction and deliberate choice mean that the Papal claims have been submitted to the judgement of the individual and have been accepted. Their value for the individual is the value of his own judgement. He may fortify his decision by appealing to the multitudes who accept the authority of the Papal See, or by consideration of its august history and splendid monuments; but, in every instance, he passes judgement on the evidential value of these various considerations. In the last resort, the infallibility of the Pope resolves itself into the infallibility of his own private judgement. We find, in fact, when we penetrate deeply enough into the grounds of conviction, that, for the mind whose decision is truly conscientious, there is no power or authority which can intervene between God and the soul. This is the essence of Luther’s doctrine. It is an eternal truth.
(Charles F. D’arcy, “Christian Liberty;” In: Anglican Essays: A Collective Review of the Principles and Special Opportunities of the Anglican Communion as Catholic and Reformed, [London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1923], p. 11.)
John Henry Newman (Became a Roman Catholic Cardinal):
Now, if man is in a state of trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give an account hereafter. So far, all parties must be agreed, that without private judgment there is no responsibility; and that in matter of fact, a man’s own mind, and nothing else, is the cause of his believing or not believing, and of his acting or not acting upon his belief.
(John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism: Second Edition, [London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1838], Lecture V: On the Use of Private Judgement, p. 157.)
Phillip Blosser (Roman Catholic Apologist):
Newman admitted that by strict philosophical standards, the Catholic position could only speak of the “probable Infallibility” of the Church (Essay, 80), a position comparable to the “fallible collection of infallible books” position of some Protestants (Sproul, in SS, 66). I am reminded of Pascal’s remark in the Pensées that there is apparent evidence on both sides of the argument concerning God’s existence, enough light to give hope to the seeker, enough darkness to blind the arrogant unbeliever and keep the believer humble. The same could be said for the evidence supporting the Infallibility of the Bible and the Church.
(Phillip Blosser, “What are the Philosophical and Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura?” In: Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis, [Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997], p. 64 fn. 76. Cf. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1890], pp. 80-81.)
Note: R. C. Sproul often referred to the classical Protestant view of the canon as “a fallible collection of Infallible books.” (R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, [Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992], p. 22.) Rome stringently objects to this characterization and claims to have “an infallible collection of infallible books.” (Ibid.) While it is true that Evangelicals do not have an infallible, or exhaustive knowledge of the canon (only the infinite can have an exhaustive knowledge of any given subject), in like fashion the members of the Roman Church do not have an infallible or exhaustive knowledge of the authority and reliability of the Papacy, and thus end in the same proverbial boat, despite their boisterous protestations to the contrary.
Jordan B. Cooper: Rome does not offer a solution to the problem of the subjective interpreter, it merely pushes the problem one step back so that it is not only Scripture which must be interpreted by the individual but Church Councils, Papal proclamations and Patristic consensus.
John C. Peckham:
Any purported interpretive arbiter must also be interpreted, ad infinitum.
Why not, then, give up the futile quest for an interpretive arbiter capable of resolving hermeneutical diversity and recognize the canon as the rule of faith? The practitioner of canonical sola Scriptura posits the canon itself as rule not because she naively thinks the canon requires no interpretation but because she does not believe any rule or normative interpreter (other than God) could actually eliminate hermeneutical diversity. According to this view, the canon functions as the standard against which all theological proposals are measured, without expecting to eliminate hermeneutical diversity.
In this regard, no reading of Scripture is deemed perfectly adequate and that is why the canon is never bypassed or replaced by any other standard.
(John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016], p. 134.)
Francis Turretin:
XXIII. No better is his supposition that conclusions concerning faith and infallible decisions cannot be made except by an infallible means which can be neither human reasoning (which is fallible) nor private inspiration (which can often be fallacious) but only the authority of the church (which God has given to us as an infallible intepreter). (1) The infallibility of the object or of the doctrines is falsely confounded with the infallibility of the subject or the human intellect. Doctrines have an absolute infallibility, but the human intellect has properly no infallibility (although it has its own certainty in working, which does not deceive). Nor is it necessary that what is fallible in its own nature, always actually deceives; otherwise there would be no certainty of knowledge (which nevertheless there is). There is no need, therefore, that the means which lead us to the knowledge of an infallible doctrine should at once be infallible. It suffices that it be such as (rightly employed) does not deceive. Thus the human mind (not alone, but enlightened by the Holy Spirit) can be such a means by which the truth can be distinguished from error. In this sense, Paul says the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor. 2:15) and John says that the anointing teaches us all things (1 Jn. 2:27). Thus there is no need for a believer to be subjected to any ecclesiastical tribunal to know the doctrine, since there is no apostle (nay, not even an angel and much less any pope or council) who is not subject to that examination, according to the oracle of Paul (Gal. 1:8). Nor if fanatics falsely boast of their inspirations, does it follow that the believer cannot be certainly persuaded of his inspiration; as the wise man does not cease to know certainly that he is sound in mind and reasons well, although an insane man claims the same for himself. (2) The cardinal falsely confounds the internal means and organs of knowledge with the external object when he compares together reasoning, inspiration and the authority of the church. For reasoning and inspiration are the internal means and organs by which we arrive at a knowledge of the truth; but the authority of the church is the external means which has the relation of the object which proposes it. Now if the two former means are fallible, they will be equally so as much with respect to the church as to the Scripture; nor can they err less in receiving the decisions of councils than in judging the doctrines of Scripture.
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three: Eighteenth Through Twentieth Topics, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 18.12.23, pp. 94-95.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) “But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c) if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? “And how should I be able (to decide),” says he, “I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher.” If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. . . . “There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge”—but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly reveal it to thee.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Hom. 33; trans. NPNF1, 11:210-211, 211.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531 A.D.):
How are you ever to overcome your obtuseness, that you do not believe the Spirit of God who offers you the truth, but put your trust in fallible men, who can do nothing without the grace and spirit of God, subscribing and defending the abuses of which they are guilty? You believe that men can give you certainty, which is no certainty, and you do not believe that God can give it you. Do you not know that the mind and understanding of every man must be brought into captivity to the obedience and service of God, and not of men? But I see your error, and in God’s name I will show it you. You do not know that it is God himself who teaches a man, nor do you know that when God has taught him that man has an inward certainty and assurance. For you do not know what the Gospel really is. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. The word Gospel is the equivalent of good news or tidings which God gives to men in matters of which they are either ignorant or doubtful. Illustration: (30) A man is longing for his soul’s salvation, and he asks a Carthusian: (31) Dear brother, what must I do to be saved? And the answer will undoubtedly be this: Enter our order, and you will assuredly be saved, for it is the most rigorous. But ask a Benedictine (32) and he replies: It is worth noting that salvation is easiest in our order, for it is the most ancient. But if you ask a Dominican (33) he will answer: In our order salvation is certain, for it was given from heaven by our Lady. And if you ask a Franciscan, (34) he will say: Our order is the greatest and most famous of all; consider then whether you will find salvation more easily in any other. And if you ask the Pope he will say: It is easiest with an indulgence. And if you ask those of Compostella (35) they will say: If you come here to St. James you will never be lost and you will never be poor. You see, they all show you some different way, and they all contend fiercely that their way is the right one. But the seeking soul cries out: Alas! whom shall I follow? They all argue so persuasively that I am at a loss what to do. And finally it can only run to God and earnestly pray to him, saying: Oh God, show me which order or which way is the most certain. You fool, you go to God simply that he may distinguish between men, and you do not ask him to show you that way of salvation which is pleasing to him and which he himself regards as sure and certain. Note that you are merely asking God to confirm something which men have told you. But why do you not say: Oh God, they all disagree amongst themselves; but you are the only, unconcealed good; show me the way of salvation? And the Gospel gives us a sure message, or answer, or assurance. Christ stands before you with open arms, inviting you and saying (Matt. 11): “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
(Ulrich Zwingli, Of the Clarity and Certainty or Power of the Word of God; In: The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXIV: Zwingli and Bullinger, trans. & ed. G. W. Bromiley, [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1953], pp. 83-84.)6. Endnotes (Additional Testimony). Return to Outline.
Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down [traditum est, traditioned]. Whence is that tradition [traditio]? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done… If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition [traditio] be observed. (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73.2, [To Pompey ]; PL, 3:1129, [Epistola LXXIV]; trans. ANF, 5:386, 387.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Gottfried Lumper, O.S.B. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
…neither in this, nor the preceding passages, do St. Cyprian’s words refer to divine traditions, distinct from Holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read the whole of the letters quoted… Cyprian acknowledged no other tradition than what is contained in the Scriptures [...neque in hoc, neque in præcedentibus locis S. Cyprianum de Traditionibus divinis a Scriptura sacra distinctis sermonem habere. De hujus asserti mei veritate quilibet facile convincetur, si laudatas Epistolas per otium integre evolvere voluerit… Nullam ergo aliam Traditionem agnoscebat Cyprianus, quam quæ in scripturis continetur.].
(P. Gottfridi Lumper, Historia Theologico-Critica de Vita, Scriptis Atque Doctrina SS. Patrum Aliorumque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Trium Priorum Sæculorum: Pars. XI, [Auguste Vindelicorum: Sumptious Matthæi Rieger P. M. Filiorum, 1795], pp. 522, 523. trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 65.)
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4.17; trans. NPNF2, 7:23.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Edward Yarnold, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
Cyril subscribed to a form of scriptura sola doctrine, stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures: ‘let us not presume to speak of what is not in Scripture’ (Cat. 16.24).
For where the divine and holy mysteries of the Creed are concerned, one must not teach casually without reference to the sacred Scriptures, or be led astray by persuasive and elaborate arguments. Do not simply take my word when I tell you these things, unless you are given proof for my teaching from holy Scripture. (Cat. 4.17)
The Creed summarizes the Scriptures which contain the whole of doctrine (Cat. 5.12).
(Edward Yarnold, S.J., Cyril of Jerusalem, The Early Church Fathers, [London: Routledge, 2000], p. 56.) Preview.
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation [Sed nolo argumento credas, sancte Imperator, et nostrae disputationi]. Let us enquire of the Scriptures [Scripturas interrogemus], of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…
(Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith (De Fide), 1.6.43; PL, 16:537; trans. NPNF2, 10:207.) See also: ccel.org.
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
Trust to no one, to guide you, but where the light of that lamp [i. e. Scripture] goes before. For where you think it shines, there is a whirlpool; it seems to shine, but it defiles; and where you think that it is firm or dry, there it is slippery. And, moreover, if you have a lamp, the way is long. Therefore let faith be the guide of your journey; let the divine Scripture be your path. Excellent is the guidance of the heavenly word. From this lamp light your lamp; that the eye of your mind, which is the lamp of your body, may give light. [nulli credas tuum, nisi præeunte lucernæ istius luce, processum. Nam ubi putas quod luceat, gurges est; videtur lucere sed polluit; et ubi putas solidum esse vel siccum, ibi lubricum est. Sed et si lucerna tibi, iter longius sit. Sit ergo fides tibi itineris tui prævia, sit tibi iter Scriptura divina. Bonus est cœlestis ductus eloquii. Ex hac lucerna accende et tu lucernam; ut luceat interior oculus tuus, qui lucerna est tui corporis.]
(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio in Psalmum CXVIII, Sermo Quartus Decimus, §. 11, PL, 15:1394; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 148.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule [κανόνα] for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things…
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom. 13.4; PG, 61:496-498; trans. NPNF1, 12:346.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
And a rule [κανὼν] admits neither addition, nor subtraction, since that destroys its being a rule [κανὼν].
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians, Hom. 12 [on Phil. 3:16]; PG, 62:273; trans NPNF1, 13:240.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? …if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule [κανόνος].
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Hom. 33; PG, 60:243-244; trans. NPNF1, 11:210-211, 211.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm [κανόνι] of Sacred Scripture.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 13.13; PG, 53:108; trans. FC, 74:175.)
Cf. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):
…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule [κανόνι] and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection [De Anima et Resurrectione]; PG, 46:49; trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
Cf. William Ames:
A rule, which by its very nature is such, contains within itself the principle of an exemplary cause, and is therefore by nature prior to that which it governs. If, therefore, Scripture becomes the rule of faith, it is also prior to faith: if it is prior to faith, then also to the faithful; but if prior to the faithful, then to the Church, which is a gathering of the faithful, and thus the Roman Church is removed from that higher place, in which it customarily places itself by a certain wicked presumption, as if it were before and above Scripture. [Regula quæ sua natura talis est, habet in sese rationem causæ exemplaris, atque adeo prior est natura suo regulato. Si igitur Scriptura fit regula fidei, est etiam prior fide: si fide prior fit, tum & fidelibus: si autem fidelibus, tum Ecclesia quæ cœtus est fidelium, atque ita Ecclesia Romana, excidet superiore illo loco, in quo sese nefaria quadam præsumptione collocare solet, quasi effet ante & supra Scripturam.]
(Guilielmo Amesio, Bellarminus Enervatus, Siv Disputationes Anti-Bellarminianæ, [Londini: Ioannem Humperidum, 1633], Tomo I, Libro I, Cap. I, §. 5, p. 2.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Regarding the things I say I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, Hom. 8.3.12 [On Repentance and the Church]; trans. FC, 96:118).
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Colossians, Hom. 9 [on Col. 3:16-17]; trans. NPNF1, 13:300-301.) See also: ccel.org.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) “But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c) if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? “And how should I be able (to decide),” says he, “I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher.” If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. . . . “There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge”—but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly reveal it to thee.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Hom. 33; trans. NPNF1, 11:210-211, 211.) See also: ccel.org.
Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum [Anonymous Commentary on Matthew] (c. 5th Century A.D.):
That is, when ye shall see the impious heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; that is, let Christians betake themselves to the Scriptures. . . . The mountains are the Scriptures of the Apostles or Prophets. . . . And why does he bid all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures? Because, at that time, when heresy hath got possession of those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith, but the divine Scriptures. For before, it was shown in many ways which was the Church of Christ, and which heathenism; but now, it is known in no way to those who wish to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, but only through the Scriptures. Why? Because all those things which are properly Christ’s in the truth, those heresies have also in their schism; Churches alike, the divine Scriptures themselves alike, bishops alike, and the other Orders of the clergy, baptism alike, the Eucharist alike, and everything else; nay, even Christ himself [i. e. the same in name]. Therefore, if any one wishes to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, whence can he ascertain it, in the confusion arising from so great a similitude, but only by the Scriptures?. . . . Therefore the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take place in the last days, commands, on that account, that the Christians who are in Christianity, and desirous of availing themselves of the strength of the true faith, should betake themselves to nothing else but the Scriptures. Otherwise, if they shall look to other things, they shall stumble and perish, not understanding which is the true Church. And through this they shall fall upon the abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church.
(Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum, Homilia XLIX, ex capite xxiv; PG, 56:908-909; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. II, [London: John Henry Jackson, 1853], pp. 342-343. Cf. John Harrison, Whose are the Fathers? [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867], pp. 537-538.)
Note: Throughout the history of the church, until Desiderius Erasmus (who questioned its authorship), the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum was attributed to John Chrysostom. It is said that Thomas Aquinas so greatly desired a complete copy of the manuscript (which appears to have been lost to history) that he would have preferred acquiring it over ruling Paris. (Cf. William of Tocco, The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. David M. Foley, [Saint Marys: Angelus Press, 2023], Ch. 42, p. 150; Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], p. 7; G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, [New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1933], pp. 113-114; Guillaume de Tocco (1323), Ystoria Sancti Thome de Aquino, Studies and Texts: 127, ed. Claire Le Brun-Gouanvic, [Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996], Capitulum XLII, p. 172.)
Cf. David M. Foley:
The anonymous Opus imperfectum was a highly important source for St. Thomas; he cites it more frequently than any other author in his Catena Aurea on the four Gospels.
(William of Tocco, The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. David M. Foley, [Saint Marys: Angelus Press, 2023], Ch. 42, p. 150 fn. 112.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
And thus have I briefly delivered to you my opinion; but if any one produce that which is more exact and true, take his exposition rather than mine [Hæc a me breviter dieta sunt. Si quis autem his sagaciora et veriora repererit, illius magis explanationi præbete consensum.].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentaria in Abacuc, Lib. II, [Cap. III, Vers. 14 seqq.]; PL, 25:1332; trans. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers: Second American Edition, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], p. 229.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
We have now done our utmost endeavour, in giving an allegorical exposition of the text; but if any other can bring that which is more probable and agreeable to reason than that which we have delivered, let the reader be guided by his authority rather than by ours [Hæc diximus, ut potuimus interpretationi allegoricæ servientes. Si quis autem magis verisimilia, et babentia rationem quam a nobis sunt disserta repererit, illius magis lector auctoritate ducatur.].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum In Sophoniam Prophetam: Liber Unus, Cap II, Vers. 12 seqq.; PL, 25:1372; trans. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers: Second American Edition, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], pp. 229-230.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
This we have written according to the utmost of our poor ability, and have given a short sketch of the divers opinions, both of our own men and of the Jews; yet if any man can give me a better and truer account of these things, I shall be very ready to embrace them [Hæc ut quivimus, et ut vires ingenioli nostri ferre potuerunt, locuti sumus, et Hebræorum et nostrorum varias opiniones breviter perstringentes, si quis melius immo verius dixerit, et nos libenter melioribus acquiescimus].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum In Zachariam Prophetam, Lib. I [Cap. V, Vers. 11 seqq.]; PL, 25:1446-1447; trans. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers: Second American Edition, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], p. 230.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
But this, as it has no authority from the Scriptures, we are at equal liberty to despise or approve [Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthæi, Lib. IV [Cap. XXIII, Vers. 35, 36]; PL, 26:173; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 152.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
There is no argument that is so forcible, as a passage from the Holy Scriptures [nihil enim ita percutit, ut exemplum de Scripturis sanctis].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum In Zachariam Prophetam, Lib. II [Cap. IX, Vers. 15, 16]; PL, 25:1488; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 152.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
What is the function of commentators? They expound the statements of someone else; they express in simple language views that have been expressed in an obscure manner; they quote the opinions of many individuals and they say: ‘Some interpret this passage in this sense, others, in another sense’; they attempt to support their own understanding and interpretation with these testimonies in this fashion, so that the prudent reader, after reading the different interpretations and studying which of these many views are to be accepted and which rejected, will judge for himself which is the more correct; and, like the expert banker, will reject the falsely minted coin.
(Jerome of Stridon, The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus, 1.16; trans. FC, 53:79.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 147.2 [To Paulina]; trans. FC, 20:171.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking… So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.
(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 162C.15; trans. WSA, III/11:176.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 147.4 [To Paulina]; trans. FC, 20:173.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Assuredly, as in all my writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, so I especially desire this in the present inquiry, which is so important that I would there were as many inquirers as there are objectors. But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound down to himself. Let not the former love me more than the catholic faith, let not the latter love himself more than the catholic verity. As I say to the former, Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to the canonical Scriptures; but in these, when thou hast discovered even what thou didst not previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly; while in those, unless thou hast understood with certainty what thou didst not before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it fast: so I say to the latter, Do not be willing to amend my writings by thine own opinion or disputation, but from the divine text, or by unanswerable reason. If thou apprehendest anything of truth in them, its being there does not make it mine, but by understanding and loving it, let it be both thine and mine; but if thou convictest anything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither thine nor mine.
(Augustine of Hippo, On the Holy Trinity, Book 3, Preface, §. 2; trans. NPNF1, 3:56.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!”
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 82.1.3 [To Jerome]; PL, 33:277; trans. NPNF1, 1:350.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 148.4.15 [To Fortunatianus], trans. NPNF1, 1:502.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Accordingly, with respect also to the passages which he has adduced,—not indeed from the canonical Scriptures, but out of certain treatises of catholic writers,—I wish to meet the assertions of such as say that the said quotations make for him. The fact is, these passages are so entirely neutral, that they oppose neither our own opinion nor his. Amongst them he wanted to class something out of my own books, thus accounting me to be a person who seemed worthy of being ranked with them. For this I must not be ungrateful, and I should be sorry—so I say with unaffected friendliness—for him to be in error, since he has conferred this honour upon me. As for his first quotation, indeed, why need I examine it largely, since I do not see here the author’s name, either because he has not given it, or because from some casual mistake the copy which you forwarded to me did not contain it? Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures) [quia solis canonicis debeo sine ulla recusatione consensum], whilst in fact there is not a passage which he has quoted from the works of this anonymous author that disturbs me.
(Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise on Nature and Grace, 71 [LXI.]; PL, 44:282 [Cap. LXI, §. 71]; trans. NPNF1, 5:146.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.
(Augustine of Hippo, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, 2.3; trans. WSA, I/18:282.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.
(Augustine of Hippo, Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, 11.5; trans. NPNF1, 4:180.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
We do no wrong to Cyprian in distinguishing his epistles from the canonical authority of the divine scripture; for it is not without reason, that the canon of the church has been settled with so much caution and exactness, containing only certain books of prophets and apostles, which we cannot presume to judge; and by which we freely judge of the writings of all others, whether believers or unbelievers.
(S. Augustini, Contra Cresconium Donatistam, Lib. II, Cap. XXXI, §. 39; PL, 43:489-490; trans. Nathaniel Lardner, The Credibility of the Gospel History, Chapter 117, §. 11.6; In: The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, D. D.: With a Life by Dr. Kippis: In Ten Volumes: Vol. IV, [London: John Dowding, 1827], p. 516. Cf. A. D. R. Polman, The Word of God According to St. Augustine, trans. A. J. Pomerans, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961], p. 65.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
I am not bound by the authority of this letter, since I do not hold Cyprian’s letters as canonical, but consider them to come from canonical writings. And whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine scriptures I accept with praise to him; but what does not agree I reject with peace to him. Hence, concerning those things you have mentioned, written by him to Jubaianus, if you should recite from some canonical book of the apostles or prophets, I would have nothing at all to contradict. But now, since you recite what is not canonical, in that freedom to which the Lord has called us, the view of this man (whose praise I am unable to reach, to whose letters I do not compare my own writings, whose mind I love, in whose speech I delight, at whose love I marvel, whose (martyrdom I venerate) about which he thought otherwise, I do not accept.
(S. Augustini, Contra Cresconium Donatistam, Lib. II, Cap. XXXII, §. 40; PL, 43:490; trans. Dr. Michael Woodward; In: David T. King, William Webster, eds. Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume III, [Battle Ground: Christian Resources, Inc., 2001], p. 141. Cf. Nathaniel Lardner, The Credibility of the Gospel History, Chapter 117, §. 11.7; In: The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, D. D.: With a Life by Dr. Kippis: In Ten Volumes: Vol. IV, [London: John Dowding, 1827], p. 516. Cf. A. D. R. Polman, The Word of God According to St. Augustine, trans. A. J. Pomerans, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961], p. 65. Cf. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: In Two Books: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], p. 209.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
However, if you inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 82.3.24 [To Jerome]; trans. NPNF1, 1:358.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
My reason for inserting these opinions of such great men on such a great subject was not to make you think that anyone’s interpretation should be accepted with the authority due to the canonical Scripture, but that those who are otherwise minded may try to see with their mind what is true, and to seek God in the simplicity of their heart, and cease to find fault so rashly with the learned expounders of the divine words.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 147.54 [To Paulina]; trans. FC, 20:223.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, “This is heavy and this is light;” but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2.6.9; trans. NPNF1, 4:429.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Wherefore, my brother, refrain from gathering together against divine testimonies so many, so perspicuous [tam clara], and so unchallenged, the calumnies which may be found in the writings of bishops either of our communion, as Hilary, or of the undivided Church itself in the age preceding the schism of Donatus, as Cyprian or Agrippinus; because, in the first place, this class of writings must be, so far as authority is concerned, distinguished from the canon of Scripture. For they are not read by us as if a testimony brought forward from them was such that it would be unlawful to hold any different opinion, for it may be that the opinions which they held were different from those to which truth demands our assent.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 93.10.35 [To Vincentius]; PL, 33:338-339; trans. NPNF1, 1:395.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
On our side there shall be no appeal to men’s fear of the civil power; on your side, let there be no intimidation by a mob of Circumcelliones. Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our arguments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of the Divine Scriptures, dispassionately and calmly, so far as we are able; let us ask, seek, and knock, that we may receive and find, and that to us the door may be opened, and thereby may be achieved, by God’s blessing on our united efforts and prayers, the first towards the entire removal from our district of that impiety which is such a disgrace to Africa.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 23.7 [To Maximin]; PL, 33:98; trans. NPNF1, 1:244.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God [Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant].
(S. Augustini, Contra Donatistas Epistola, vulgo De Unitate Ecclesiæ, Lib. I, Cap. XI, §. 28; PL, 43:410-411; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: John Henry Jackson, 1853], p. 165. Cf. WSA, I/21:634-635.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith.
(S. Augustini, Contra Donatistas Epistola, vulgo De Unitate Ecclesiæ, Lib. I, Cap. XVIII, §. 47; PL, 43:427-428; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: John Henry Jackson, 1853], p. 165. Cf. WSA, I/21:660.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen.
(S. Augustini, Contra Donatistas Epistola, vulgo De Unitate Ecclesiæ, Lib. I, Cap. XIX, §. 50; PL, 43:430; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: John Henry Jackson, 1853], p. 165. Cf. WSA, I/21:663-664.)
Cf. John C. Peckham:
Undoubtedly, one might marshal interpretations of these and other quotations from Augustine that oppose the canonical approach… Yet such passages raise critical questions regarding whether and to what extent Augustine himself would endorse [the] appeal to consensual exegetes or other normative interpreters of the canon. In this and other regards, Augustine’s writings themselves are subject to interpretation. Any purported interpretive arbiter must also be interpreted, ad infinitum.
Why not, then, give up the futile quest for an interpretive arbiter capable of resolving hermeneutical diversity and recognize the canon as the rule of faith? The practitioner of canonical sola Scriptura posits the canon itself as rule not because she naively thinks the canon requires no interpretation but because she does not believe any rule or normative interpreter (other than God) could actually eliminate hermeneutical diversity. According to this view, the canon functions as the standard against which all theological proposals are measured, without expecting to eliminate hermeneutical diversity.
In this regard, no reading of Scripture is deemed perfectly adequate and that is why the canon is never bypassed or replaced by any other standard.
(John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016], p. 134.) Return to Article.For these, for the most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself Truth, not Custom. If Christ is always, and prior to all, equally truth is a thing sempiternal and ancient. Let those therefore look to themselves, to whom that is new which is intrinsically old. It is not so much novelty as truth which convicts heresies. Whatever savours of opposition to truth, this will be heresy, even (if it be an) ancient custom. …They who have received Him set truth before custom.
(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Veiling of Virgins, 1; trans. ANF, 4:27, 28.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258 A.D.):
…for custom without truth is the antiquity of error [Nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est]. (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73.9 [To Pompey]; PL, 3:1134 [Epistola LXXIV]; trans. ANF, 5:389.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258 A.D.):
Hence it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth [Proinde frustra quidem qui ratione vincuntur consuetudinem nobis opponunt; quasi consuetudo major sit veritate]…
(Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72.13 [To Jubaianus]; PL, 3:1117 [Epistola LXXIII]; trans. ANF, 5:382.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258 A.D.):
Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason [Non est autem de consuetudine præscribendum, sed ratione vincendum].
(Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 70.3 [To Quintus]; PL, 4:410 [Epistola LXXI]; trans. ANF, 5:377.) See also: ccel.org.
Castus of Sicca (c. 3rd Century A.D.):
He who with contempt of the truth presumes to follow custom, is either envious and malignant in respect of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or is ungrateful in respect of God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed.
(Castus of Sicca, Quoted in: The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian: Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, trans. ANF, 5:568. Cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3.5.8.) See also: ccel.org.
Libosus of Vaga (fl. 256 A.D.):
In the Gospel the Lord says, “I am the truth.” He said not, “I am the custom.” Therefore the truth being manifest, let custom yield to truth…
(Libosus of Vaga, Quoted in: The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian: Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, trans. ANF, 5:569. Cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3.6.9.) See also: ccel.org.
Felix of Bussacene (c. 3rd Century A.D.):
…let no one prefer custom to reason and truth, because reason and truth always exclude custom.
(Felix of Bussacene, Quoted in: The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian: Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, trans. ANF, 5:571. Cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3.8.11.) See also: ccel.org.
Honoratus of Thucca (c. 3rd Century A.D.):
Since Christ is the Truth, we ought rather to follow truth than custom…
(Honoratus of Thucca, Quoted in: The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian: Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, trans. ANF, 5:571. Cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3.9.12.) See also: ccel.org.
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Basil the Great, Letter 189.3 [To Eustathius]; trans. NPNF2, 8:229.) See also: ccel.org.
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):
What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit [To Eustathius]; trans. NPNF2, 5:327.) See also: ccel.org.
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
The error, neither of parents nor ancestors, is to be followed; but the authority of the Scriptures, and the government of God as our teacher [Ergo nec parentum nec majorum error sequendus est: sed auctoritas Scripturarum, et Dei docentis imperium].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Jeremiam Prophetam, Lib. II [Cap. IX, Vers. 12 seqq.]; PL, 24:743; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 151.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Libosus also of Vaga says: “The Lord says in the gospel, ‘I am the Truth.’ He does not say, ‘I am custom.’ Therefore, when the truth is made manifest, custom must give way to truth.” Clearly, no one could doubt that custom must give way to truth where it is made manifest.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3.6.9; trans. NPNF1, 4:439.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
“Further,” Cyprian goes on to say, “in vain do some, who are overcome by reason, oppose to us custom, as though custom were superior to truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things which has been revealed by the Holy Spirit, as the better way.” This is clearly true, since reason and truth are to be preferred to custom. But when truth supports custom, nothing should be more strongly maintained.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 4.5.8; trans. NPNF1, 4:449.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.…as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught [ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν]...
(Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 33; PG, 6:381; trans. ANF, 1:174.) See also: ccel.org.
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):
Even as there was no ignorance on God’s part when He asked Adam where he was, or asked Cain where Abel was; but [it was done] to convince each what kind of man he was, and in order that through the record [of Scripture] we might have a knowledge of all…
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 99; trans. ANF, 1:248.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
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 [tradiderunt, traditioned] to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Irenæus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; PG, 7:844; trans. ANF, 1:414.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
When they are rebuked from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were neither right nor authoritative, both because they do not always say things the same way and because the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know the tradition, because it was not passed on in writing but orally [sed per vivam vocem, lit. by a living voice].
(Irenæus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.1; PG, 7:846; trans. Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], 2.3.6, p. 233. Cf. ANF, 1:415.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
…blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures [πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς].
(Irenæus of Lyons; Quoted in: Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 5.20.6; PG, 20:485; trans. NPNF2, 1:238-239.) See also: ccel.org.
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 A.D.):
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn…
(Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9; trans. ANF, 5:227.) See also: ccel.org.
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-240 A.D.):
Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone [Scripturis solis]: they will then be unable to keep their ground.
(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 3; PL, 2:799; trans. ANF, 3:547.) See also: ccel.org.
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-240 A.D.):
Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.
(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Hermogenes, 22; trans. ANF, 3:490.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258 A.D.):
Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down [traditum est, traditioned]. Whence is that tradition [traditio]? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: “The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.” Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition [traditio] be observed. …But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen the reason of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully and freely, suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether from the drying up of the springs the water has failed at the fountainhead, or whether, flowing thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of its course; that so, if it has been caused by the fault of an interrupted or leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow uninterruptedly and continuously, then the channel being repaired and strengthened, the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it issues from the spring? And this it behoves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin.
(Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73.2, 10 [To Pompey ]; PL, 3:1129, 1135-1136 [Epistola LXXIV]; trans. ANF, 5:386-387, 389.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: According to Cyprian tradition is only authoritative when it is subservient to the authority of Scripture. It has no authority in and of itself (apart from Scripture).
Cf. Gottfried Lumper, O.S.B. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
…neither in this, nor the preceding passages, do St. Cyprian’s words refer to divine traditions, distinct from Holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read the whole of the letters quoted… Cyprian acknowledged no other tradition than what is contained in the Scriptures [...neque in hoc, neque in præcedentibus locis S. Cyprianum de Traditionibus divinis a Scriptura sacra distinctis sermonem habere. De hujus asserti mei veritate quilibet facile convincetur, si laudatas Epistolas per otium integre evolvere voluerit… Nullam ergo aliam Traditionem agnoscebat Cyprianus, quam quæ in scripturis continetur.].
(P. Gottfridi Lumper, Historia Theologico-Critica de Vita, Scriptis Atque Doctrina SS. Patrum Aliorumque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Trium Priorum Sæculorum: Pars. XI, [Auguste Vindelicorum: Sumptious Matthæi Rieger P. M. Filiorum, 1795], pp. 522, 523. trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 65.)
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
But as for us, what our fathers said, we repeat… But we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of Scripture, beginning with the evidence which I have just extracted from the Scriptures and presented to you.
(Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit (De Spiritu Sancto), 7.16; trans. St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, trans. David Anderson, [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980], p. 34. Cf. NPNF2, 8:10.) See also: ccel.org.
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written seek not. [Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα μὴ ζήτει].
(S. Basilii Magni, Homilia: Adversus Eos Qui Per Calumniam Dicunt Dici a Nobis Deos Tres, 4; PG, 31:1493; trans. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, ed. J. Williams, [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1895], Article VI, p. 149.)
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin,’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(Basil the Great, The Morals, 22; trans. FC, 9:203-204.)
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
(Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (De Synodis), 1.6; trans. NPNF2, 4:453.) See also: ccel.org.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’
(Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter 39.6; trans. NPNF2, 4:552.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. …I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light, should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith.
(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5.12; trans. NPNF2, 7:32.) See also: ccel.org.
Nicetas, Bishop of Remesiana (c. 335-414 A.D.):
These things being so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few—but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures.
(Niceta of Remesiana, Explanation of the Creed, 13; trans. FC, 7:53.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
The other things, also, which they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by apostolical tradition, the sword of God [the word of God in the Scriptures] strikes down [Sed et alia quæ absque auctoritate et testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius Dei].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum In Aggæum Prophetam, Lib. I, Vers. 11, PL, 25:1398; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 151.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
‘In his record of the peoples the Lord shall tell’: in the sacred writings, in His Scripture that is read to all peoples in order that all may know. Thus the apostles have written; thus the Lord Himself has spoken, not merely for a few, but that all might know and understand [non ut pauci intellegerent, sed ut omnes]. Plato wrote books, but he did not write for all people but only for a few, for there are not many more than two or three men who know him. But the princes of the Church and the princes of Christ did not write only for the few, but for everyone without exception. ‘And princes’: the apostles and the evangelists. ‘Of those who have been born in her.’ Note: ‘who have been’ and not ‘who are.’ That is to make sure that, with the exception of the apostles, whatever else is said afterwards should be removed and not, later on, hold the force of authority. No matter how holy anyone may be after the time of the apostles, no matter how eloquent, he does not have authority [Quamuis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos, quamuis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem], for ‘in his record of the peoples and princes the Lord shall tell of those who have been born in her.’
(Hieronymus, Tractatus in Psalmos, De Psalmo LXXXVI; CCSL, 78:115-116; trans. FC, 48:142-143 [Homily 18 – On Psalm 86(87)].)
Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
‘The Lord shall tell in the writings of peoples and of the princes, of them that have been in her.’ (verse 6) He did not say those who are in her, but those who have been in her. ‘The Lord shall tell;’ and how shall he tell? Not in word, but in writing. In whose writing? That of the peoples? That of the peoples is not sufficient. But he also says in that of the princes; and of what princes? They who are in her? he did not say this, but who have been in her.
See, therefore, how full the Holy Scriptures are of sacraments (sacramentis, symbols). We read of the Apostle Paul, we read of Peter, and we read of him (Paul) saying, ‘Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?’ (2 Cor. xiii. 3) And what Paul speaks, Christ speaks; for ‘He who receiveth you receiveth me.’ (Matt. x. 40) Therefore our Lord and Savior telleth us, and speaketh in the writings of His princes. The Lord will tell in the writings of the peoples, in the Holy Writings. Which writing is read by all the people, that is, that all may understand. He saith what this is. As the apostles have written so also the Lord Himself; that is, He hath spoken by His evangelists, and that not a few, but that all may understand [non ut pauci intelligerent, sed ut omnes].
Plato wrote writings, but he wrote not for the peoples, but for the few. For scarcely three men understand him. These indeed, that is, the princes of the Church and princes of Christ, have not written for a few, but for the whole people. And of the princes, that is, of the apostles, and evangelists of those who have been in her. See ye what he says. Who have been, not who are; that, the apostles excepted, whatever else is said afterwards is cut off, hath no authority afterwards. Although, therefore, anyone after the apostles, although he may be eloquent, he hath no authority [Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos: quamvis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem], because ‘The Lord shall tell in the writing of peoples, and of these princes that have been in her.’
(S. Hieronymi, Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus LXXXVI; PL, 26:1083-1084; trans. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867], pp. 481-482.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Therefore, when those disciples have written matters which He declared and spake to them, it ought not by any means to be said that He has written nothing Himself; since the truth is, that His members have accomplished only what they became acquainted with by the repeated statements of the Head. For all that He was minded to give for our perusal on the subject of His own doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those disciples, whom He thus used as if they were His own hands [Quidquid enim ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit].
(Augustine of Hippo, The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.35.54; PL, 34:1070; trans. NPNF1, 6:101.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no-one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when he offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read [in quo quod palpemus nos non habemus, sed quod legamus habemus].
(S. Aurelii Augustini, In Epistolam Johannis ad Parthos Tractatus Decem, Tractatus II.1; PL, 35:1989; trans. Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part 1, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 152. Cf. NPNF1, 7:469. Cf. FC, 92:142.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care hath delivered, let your memory be your record-roll: what ye are about to hear, that are ye to believe; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes.
(Augustine of Hippo, On the Creed, 1; trans. NPNF1, 3:369.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
The apostle says: Since if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that the Lord raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto justice, and with the mouth one makes confession unto salvation (Rom 10:9-10). This is what the Symbol builds up in you, what you must both believe and confess, so that you may be saved. And indeed, the things you are going to receive in a short enough form, to be committed to memory and repeated by word of mouth, are not new things which you haven’t heard before. I mean, you are quite used to hearing them in the holy scriptures and in sermons in church. But they have been compressed into a brief summary, and reduced to a definite, tightly knit order; and that is how they are to be handed over to you, to build up your faith and to prepare you to confess it, without burdening your memories. This then is what you are faithfully going to retain, and to give back from memory.
(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 214.1; WSA, III/6:150.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith [inveniuntur illa omnia quæ continent fidem] and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 2.9.14; PL, 34:42; trans. NPNF1, 2:539. Cf. WSA, I/11:135.) See also: ccel.org.
John Cassian (c. 360-435 A.D.):
For, as you know, a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a “collection.” For what is called in Greek σύμβολος is termed in Latin “Collatio.” But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fulness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle’s words: “Completing His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.” This then is the “short word” which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory.
(John Cassian, On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius, 6.3; trans. NPNF2, 11:592-593.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it “purify the heart.” Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.—John xvii. 17, 19; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 22.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], pp. 85-86, 89-90.)
Cf. Charles Hodge:
...the obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men.
(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1883], p. 184.) See also: ccel.org and monergism.com.
Cf. John Henry Newman (Became a Roman Catholic Cardinal):
Now, if man is in a state of trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give an account hereafter. So far, all parties must be agreed, that without private judgment there is no responsibility; and that in matter of fact, a man’s own mind, and nothing else, is the cause of his believing or not believing, and of his acting or not acting upon his belief.
(John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism: Second Edition, [London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1838], Lecture V: On the Use of Private Judgement, p. 157.) Return to Article.All that we have still to say about the authority of the Church itself can be understood in the light of the commandment in Ex. 2012: “Honour thy father and thy mother.” Obviously there can be no conflict between this commandment and the first: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.” What it demands is self-evidently limited by the first commandment. But the dignity of what it demands is not reduced and lessened by the demand of the first commandment. On the contrary, because the first commandment is valid, in its own sphere the commandment to honour father and mother is also valid. It is in the people which has none other God but the One who brought them out of Egypt that father and mother are honoured by the children as the visible bearers and representatives of their own adherence to this people. The connexion of this commandment with the basic commandment which as such constitutes the people Israel, and the comprehensive sense in which the latter has to be understood, are clearly brought out in the saying in Lev. 1932: “Thou shalt rise up before a hoary head and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: for I am the Lord.” We can see the same order in what the Old Testament says about the blessing which fathers can and should pronounce on their children and the priests on the whole people: the fact that men bless is not the denial but a confirmation of the real truth that Yahweh blesses and keeps, Yahweh makes His face shine and is gracious, Yahweh lifts up His countenance upon those who are blessed and gives them peace (Num. 622f.). Again, the fact that Yahweh blesses and keeps and is gracious is not a denial but an institution and confirmation of the human blessing, the fatherly and priestly blessing pronounced on His people. At this point, too, we can and must recall the prophetic saying in Jer. 616: “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” And the saying of Bildad in Job 88 points in the same direction : “For inquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to that which their fathers have searched out.” The new and strange word of the witness of revelation in the name of Yahweh points here to an earthly-historical way along which the people has always been led thanks to the revelation within it : “I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times” (Ps. 775)—and which as such has something to say to the people in which it will again recognise the “good way.” The former way is not, of course, to be regarded as an autonomous word, distinct from the present revelation of Yahweh, another authority side by side with that of the prophetic word. But the revelation too, the prophetic word, cannot and should not be spoken and heard without remembering the former way of Yahweh with His people. From this standpoint we have to admit basically and generally that Cyprian was right when he said: disciplinam Dei in ecclesiasticis praeceptis observandam esse (Ad Quir. Ill 66). We understand it in this way: that there is an authority of the Church which does not involve any contradiction or revolt against the authority of Jesus Christ, which can only confirm the disciplina Dei, and which for its part is not negated by the authority of Jesus Christ, by the disciplina Dei, but is established, confirmed and yet also defined and delimited by it. Ut sacrilega esset partiiio, si fides vel in minima articulo separatim ab homine penderet, sic ludibrio Deum palam habent, qui praeteritis ministris, per quos loquitur, ilium se magistrum recipere simulant (Calvin, Comm. on Act 1528, C.R. 48, 362). The Church has a genuine authority.
Under the Word and therefore under Holy Scripture the Church does have and exercise genuine authority.
(Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God: Second Half-Volume, eds. G. W. Bromiley, T. F. Torrance, trans. G. T. Thomson, Harold Knight, [Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1963], pp. 585-586.) Return to Article.…as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught [ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν]...
(Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 33; PG, 6:381; trans. ANF, 1:174.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
…read with earnest care that Gospel which has been conveyed to us by the apostles, and read with earnest care the prophets, and you will find that the whole conduct, and all the doctrine [et omnem doctrinam], and all the sufferings of our Lord, were predicted through them.
(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 4.34.1; PG, 7:1083; trans. ANF, 1:511.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
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 [tradiderunt, traditioned] to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Irenæus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; PG, 7:844; trans. ANF, 1:414.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…
(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 1.8.1; PG, 7:519, 520; trans. ANF, 1:326.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. D. Jeffrey Bingham:
Heinz Ohme, the author of the most extensive study of the rule of faith ever conducted, a study that was originally submitted as a Habilitationsschrift at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, avers that for Irenaeus “the sacred Scripture is fundamentally complete, sufficient, and from itself comprehensible. Therefore, he can refer to Scripture itself as the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας.”
(D. Jeffrey Bingham, “The Bishop in the Mirror: Scripture and Irenaeus’s Self-Understanding in Adversus Haereses Book One;” In: Tradition and the Rule of Faith In the Early Church: Essays In Honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J., eds. Ronnie J. Rombs, Alexander Y. Hwang, [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010], pp. 42-43.)
Note: Published by The Catholic University of America Press.
Note: κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (“the canon of truth”).
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 A.D.):
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn…
(Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9; trans. ANF, 5:227.) See also: ccel.org.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A D.):
It is now time, as we have despatched in order the other points, to go to the prophetic Scriptures; for the oracles present us with the appliances necessary for the attainment of piety, and so establish the truth. The divine Scriptures and institutions of wisdom form the short road to salvation. Devoid of embellishment, of outward beauty of diction, of wordiness and seductiveness, they raise up humanity strangled by wickedness, teaching men to despise the casualties of life; and with one and the same voice remedying many evils, they at once dissuade us from pernicious deceit, and clearly exhort us to the attainment of the salvation set before us.
(Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 8; trans. ANF, 2:193-194.) See also: ccel.org.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):
To the best of my understanding, I think in these two days the two Testaments can be understood. In these, every word that pertains to God—for this is a sacrifice—can be sought and discussed and even the whole knowledge of things can be received from these. But if something “has been left over,” that the divine Scripture does not discern, no other third scripture ought to be received as an authority of knowledge, for that is called the third day, but let us give to fire “what is left over”; that is, let us preserve it for God.
(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Leviticus, Hom. 5.9.3; trans. FC, 83:107).
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
…the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…
(Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen), 1; trans. NPNF2, 4:4.) See also: ccel.org.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.
(Athanasius of Alexandria, To the Bishops of Egypt, 1.4; trans. NPNF2, 4:225.) See also: ccel.org.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
(Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (De Synodis), 1.6; trans. NPNF2, 4:453.) See also: ccel.org.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’
(Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter 39.6; trans. NPNF2, 4:552.) See also: ccel.org.
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
It is a manifest piece of infidelity, and incurs a just charge of arrogance, either to reject what is written, or to add anything which is not written [φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων].
(S. Basilii Magni, Ejusdem de Fide, §. 1; PG, 31:680; trans. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. & ed. William Fitzgerald, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1849], p. 681.)
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4.17; trans. NPNF2, 7:23.) See also: ccel.org.
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):
Forasmuch as this is upholden with no testimony of the scripture, we will reject it as false [Cum id nullo scripturæ testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improbabimus].
(S. Gregorii Nysseni, Fragmenta ex Operibus, Frag. VI: Ex libro inscripto De cognitione Dei; PG, 46:1115; trans. William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [London: J. G. & F. Rivington 1838], p. 11.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?
(Ambrose of Milan, On the Duties of the Clergy, 1.23.102; trans. NPNF2, 10:18.) See also: ccel.org.
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
I read that he is first, I read that he is not second; let those who say that he is second, show where they read it [lego quia primus est, lego quia non est secundus. Illi qui secundum aiunt, doceant lectione].
(Sancti Ambrosii, De Institutione Virginis, Liber Unus, Caput XI, §. 71; PL, 16:323; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 148.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
Divine Scripture confers salvation on us and is fragrant with the perfume of life, so that he who reads may acquire sweetness and not rush into danger to his own destruction.
(Ambrose of Milan, The Six Days of Creation (Hexameron), 1.2.8.30; trans. FC, 42:34.)
Gaius Marius Victorinus (4th Century A.D.):
That such is the faith, with the permission of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, we shall affirm. Let no one say, understanding me in a blasphemous way, that it is my own teaching. Indeed, all that I say is said by Holy Scripture and comes from Holy Scripture.
(Marius Victorinus, Theological Treatises on the Trinity: Reply of Victorinus, 1A.6.46; trans. FC, 69:165.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Great is the profit of the divine Scriptures, and all-sufficient is the aid which comes from them. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Hom. 37.1; trans. NPNF1, 14:128.) See also: ccel.org.
Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (c. ?-412 A.D.):
It would be the instigation of a demoniacal spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures [dæmoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium sequi, et aliquid extra Scripturarum auctoritatem putare divinum].
(Sancti Hieronymi, Epistola XCVI [Sive Theophili Alexandrini Episcopi], §. 6; PL, 22:778; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], pp. 154-155.)
Nicetas, Bishop of Remesiana (c. 335-414 A.D.):
These things being so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few—but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures.
(Niceta of Remesiana, Explanation of the Creed, 13; trans. FC, 7:53.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written [Sed ut hæc quæ scripta sunt, non negamus, ita ea quæ non sunt scripta, renuimus]. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it.
(Jerome of Stridon, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, 21; PL, 23:203 [§. 19]; trans. NPNF2, 6:344.) See also: ccel.org.
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
The things, which have not their authority of the scriptures, may as easily be despised as allowed [Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthæi, Lib. IV, Cap. XXIII, Vers. 35, 36; PL, 26:173; trans. “Conferences: Certain Godly, Learned, and Comfortable Conferences Between Nicholas Ridley, Sometime Bishop of London, and Hugh Latimer, Sometime Bishop of Worcester, During the Time of Their Imprisonment, A. D. 1556;” In: The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D. Sometime Lord Bishop of London, Martyr, 1555, ed. Henry Christmas, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1841], p. 113.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us [et ad singula problemata, congrua de testimoniis Scripturarum ligna quaerentes, praecidamus ea, et ædificemus domum sapientiæ in nobis].
(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum In Aggæum Prophetam, Lib. I, Cap. I, Vers. 7, 8; PL, 25:1396; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 151.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Whatsoever ye hear from the holy Scriptures, let that savour well unto you; whatsoever is without them, refuse, lest you wander in a cloud [Quidquid inde audieritis, hoc vobis bene sapiat: quidquid extra est, respuite. Ne erretis in nebula].
(S. Augustini Episcopi, Sermo XLVI, Caput XI, §. 24; PL, 38:284; trans. James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit: With Other Tracts on Popery, [Cambridge: Printed at the Pitt Press, 1838], “Answer to a Jesuit’s Challenge,” §. Of Traditions, p. 35.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith [inveniuntur illa omnia quæ continent fidem] and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 2.9.14; PL, 34:42; trans. NPNF1, 2:539. Cf. WSA, I/11:135.) See also: ccel.org.
John Cassian (c. 360-435 A.D.):
For, as you know, a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a “collection.” For what is called in Greek σύμβολος is termed in Latin “Collatio.” But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fulness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle’s words: “Completing His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.” This then is the “short word” which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory.
(John Cassian, On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius, 6.3; trans. NPNF2, 11:592-593.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
That which the divine Scripture hath not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities [Ὃ γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηκεν ἡ θεία Γραφὴ, τίνα δὴ τρόπον παραδεξόμεθα, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἔχουσι καταλογιούμεθα]?
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Glaphyrorum in Genesim, Lib. II, §. 2; PG, 69:53, trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 181.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
Sufficient, sufficient for this [i. e. for obtaining a knowledge of the faith] are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, [i. e., as the words following show, the inspired writers,] which if any one would diligently study and vigilantly attend to, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light. For, they did not speak of themselves, but ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.’ [Ἅλις γάρ, ἅλις αἱ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων εἰς τοῦτο συγγραφαί, αἷς εἴπερ τις ἕλοιτο νουνεχῶς ὁμιλεῖν καὶ ἐγρηγορότως προσφέρεσθαι, φωτὸς ἂν τοῦ θείου τὸν οἰκεῖον εὐθὺς ἀναμεστώσειε νοῦν. Ἦσαν γὰρ οὐκ αὐτοὶ λαλοῦντες ἐν αὐτοῖς· «Πᾶσα δὲ Γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος.»]
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., De Sancta et Consubstantiali Trinitate: Dialogus I; PG, 75:665; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], pp. 281-282.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things. . . . . . What that is profitable to us is not spoken by it? For, first, (what is also more excellent than all other things,) any one may see in it the glorious doctrine of the true knowledge of God. . . . . . Moreover, in addition to this, it teaches us how to order aright our life and conversation, and by its divine and sacred laws directs us in the way of righteousness, and makes the path of all equity clear to us. [Ἀπόχρη μὲν οὖν ἡ θεόπνευστος Γραφὴ καὶ πρός γε τὸ δεῖν ἀποφάναι σοφοὺς καὶ δοκιμωτάτους, καὶ διαρκεστάτην ἔχοντας σύνεσιν τοὺς ἐντεθραμμέους αὐτῇ· ...Τί γὰρ τῶν ὀνησιφόρων οὐκ εἴρηται παρʼ αὐτῆς; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὅ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τιμαλφέστερον, κατίδοι τις ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεοπτίας ἐναστράπτοντας λόγους. ...Εἶτα πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τῆς εὐζωΐας ἡμῖν εἰσηγῆται τρόπους, νόμοις δὲ θείοις καὶ ἱεροῖς ἀπευθύνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ μὴν καὶ ἁπάσης ἡμῖν ἐπιεικείας ἐναργῆ καθίστησι τρίβον.]
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Contra Julianum, Lib. VII; PG, 76:852-853; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], pp. 282-283.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
Paul requires us to prove every thing, and says, Be wise money-changers. But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely-inspired Scripture.
(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Homily 55; trans. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith, [Astoria: Studion Publishers, Inc., 1983], p. 240.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
…those who love the Word of salvation, and unrol the divine Scripture as a treasure, and carefully search out the things therein concealed, find the lifegiving knowledge which leads them on to every virtuous pursuit, and makes them perfect in the knowledge of the doctrines of truth.
(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Sermon 63; trans. S. Cyril, A Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke: Part I, trans. R. Payne Smith, [Oxford: At the University Press, 1859], p. 333.) See also: tertullian.org.
Vincent of Lérins (c. ?-445 A.D.):
…the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient…
(Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory, 2.5; trans. NPNF2, 11:132.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: For more on Vincent and the formulation of the concept of tradition see: Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013]. Preview.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
Orth.—Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
Eran.—You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue I.—The Immutable; trans. NPNF2, 3:165.) See also: ccel.org.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
Orth.—This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue III.—The Impassible; trans. NPNF2, 3:228.) See also: ccel.org.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
Similar passages might easily be collected from poets, orators, and philosophers, but for us the divine writings are sufficient.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Letter 21 [To the Learned Eusebius]; trans. NPNF2, 3:258.) See also: ccel.org.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
They will find that by God’s grace I hold no other opinion than just that which I have received from holy Scripture.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Letter 82 [To Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra]; trans. NPNF2, 3:278.) See also: ccel.org.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
The impiety of Sabellius, Photinus, Marcellus, and Paulus, we refute by proving by the evidence of divine Scripture that the Lord Christ was not only man but also eternal God, of one substance with the Father.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Letter 151 [Letter or Address of Theodoret to the Monks of the Euphratensian, the Osrhoene, Syria, Phœnicia, and Cilicia]; trans. NPNF2, 3:327.) See also: ccel.org.
Salvian the Presbyter (c. 5th Century A.D.):
I could answer with reason and with sufficient constancy: ‘I do not know,’ because I do not know the secret councils of God. The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read.
(Salvian the Presbyter, The Governance of God, 3.1; trans. FC, 3:68.)
Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (c. 468/470-542 A.D.):
You ask whether He was begotten or not. Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know this through idle curiosity.
(Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 213 [On the Divine Nature of the Holy Spirit (II)], §. 2; trans. FC, 66:107.)
Gregory I [Gregory the Great], Bishop of Rome (c. 540-604 A.D.):
As servants that serve well are ever intent upon their masters’ countenances, that the things they may bid they may hear readily, and strive to fulfil; so the minds of the righteous in their bent are upon Almighty God, and in His Scripture they as it were fix their eyes on His is face, that whereas God delivers therein all that He wills [ut quia per eam Deus loquitur omne quod vult], they may not be at variance with His will, in proportion as they learn that will in His revelation. Whence it happens, that His words do not pass superfluously through their ears, but that these words they fix in their hearts.
(Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, 16.35 [on Job 23:12]; PL, 75:1142; trans. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great: In Three Volumes: Vol. II: Parts III and IV, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845], p. 252.)
John of Damascus (c. 675/6-749 A.D.):
Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these.
(John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1.1; trans. NPNF2, 9:1.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.We will not be able to doubt or dispute the fact that in post-Tridentine theology the main trend of thought has been to maintain, on the basis of an anti-Protestant front, that there is not only the truth of the inspiration and of the canon of scripture but that there are also other truths of faith which are not to be found in scripture, so that for them oral tradition is a materially distinct source of faith.
(Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations: Volume VI: Concerning Vatican Council II, trans. Karl-H. and Boniface Kruger, [New York: Crossroad, 1982], p. 107. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil obstat: Nicholas Tranter, S.T.L., Censor. Imprimatur: Patrick Casey, Vic. Gen. Westminster, 5th May, 1969.)
Peter Stravinskas, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
…no single theory of divine Revelation dominated the catholic landscape prior to Trent and indeed that none really did afterwards, either. Granted, all the Catholic apologists were united in asserting that both Church and Scripture carried weight, but they were far from unanimous in explaining the relationship between the two.
(Peter Stravinskas, S.J., “What is Catholicism’s Official Doctrine on Scripture and Tradition?” In: Not By Scripture Alone, ed. Robert Sungenis, [Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997], pp. 376-377. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Carroll E. Satterfield, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Monsignor W. Francis Malooly, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.)
Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Roman Catholic Cardinal and Canonized Saint):
The controversy between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is, that we assert that in Scripture is not expressly contained all necessary doctrine, whether concerning faith or morals, and therefore that, besides the written word of God, there is moreover needed the unwritten word, i. e. Divine and Apostolical Tradition. But they teach, that all things necessary for faith and morals are contained in the Scriptures, and that therefore there is no need of the unwritten word. [Controversia igitur inter nos, et hæreticos in duobus consistit. Primum est, quod nos asserimus, in Scripturis non contineri expresse totam doctrinam necessariam, sive de Fide, sive de moribus: et proinde præter verbum Dei scriptum, requiri etiam verbum Dei non scriptum, id est, divinas et apostolicas Traditiones. At ipsi docent, in Scripturis omnia contineri ad Fidem et mores necessaria, et proinde non esse opus ullo verbo non scripto.]
(Roberti Bellarmini, Controversiarum de Verbo Dei, Liber Quartus: Ubi de Traditione, Caput III; In: Ven. Cardinalis Roberti Bellarmini, Politiani S. J., Opera Omnia: Ex Editione Veneta, Pluribus Tum Additis Tum Correctis: Tomus Primus, Iterum Edidit, Justinus Fèvre, [Parisiis: Apud Ludovicum Vivès, 1870], p. 197; trans. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, ed. J. Williams, [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1883], p. 131.)
Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Roman Catholic Cardinal and Canonized Saint):
I assert that Scripture, although not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and Tradition. [Scripturam, etsi non est facta præcipue ut sit regula Fidei, esse tamen regulam Fidei, non totalem, sed partialem. Totalis enim regula Fidei est verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei Ecclesiæ facta, quæ dividitur in duas regulas partiales, Scripturam et Traditionem.]
(Roberti Bellarmini, Controversiarum de Verbo Dei, Liber Quartus: Ubi de Traditione, Caput XII; In: Ven. Cardinalis Roberti Bellarmini, Politiani S. J., Opera Omnia: Ex Editione Veneta, Pluribus Tum Additis Tum Correctis: Tomus Primus, Iterum Edidit, Justinus Fèvre, [Parisiis: Apud Ludovicum Vivès, 1870], p. 229; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. I: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 85.)
James Cardinal Gibbons (Archbishop of Baltimore):
A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers. For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible.
We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.
(James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, The Faith of Our Fathers: Being A Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, One Hundred and Tenth Carefully Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Baltimore: John Murphy Company, 1917], pp. 89-90.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible.
(Jean Bainvel, “Tradition and Living Magisterium;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume XV: Special Edition, [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913], p. 6. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912, Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Karl Keating (Roman Catholic Apologist and Founder of Catholic Answers):
It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the NT. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing—the part that is outside of the NT and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition—that part of revelation Catholics also accept…
(Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988], p. 151. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, January 28, 1988.)
Joseph Ratzinger (The Future Pope Benedict XVI):
...no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.
(Joseph Ratzinger, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation;” In: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II: Volume III, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, [New York: Herder and Herder, 1969], p. 195. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: John M. T. Barton, S. T. D., L. S. S., Censor. Imprimatur: Patrick Casey, Vic. Gen., Auxillary Bishop of Westminster, Westminster, 5th August 1968.)
Joseph Ratzinger (The Future Pope Benedict XVI):
Geiselmann starts from a new interpretation of the Council of Trent’s decrees about the nature of tradition. Trent had established that the truth of the gospel was contained “in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus”. That was (and is to this day) interpreted as meaning that Scripture does not contain the whole veritas evangelii and that no sola scriptura principle is therefore possible, since part of the truth of revelation reaches us only through tradition. Geiselmann took up the point, already made by others, that the first draft of the text provided the formulation that truth is contained “partim in libris scriptis partim in sine scripto traditionibus”. Here, then, the doctrine of a division of truth into two sources (Scripture and tradition) was clearly articulated. The Council renounced the use of partim—partim, however, and contented itself with the simple conjunction et. Geiselmann concludes from this that they had turned away from the idea of a division of truth into two separate sources, or had at least not explicitly defined it. And he further concludes that consequently even a Catholic theologian can argue the material sufficiency of Scripture and can also, as a Catholic, hold the opinion that Holy Scripture transmits revelation to us sufficiently. Accordingly, Geiselmann thinks a material sola scriptura thoroughly acceptable even for a Catholic—indeed, he believes he can show that this has much the stronger tradition in its favor and that the Council of Trent, likewise, intended to point us in this direction.
It is easy to understand how such a thesis could count on widespread agreement in view of the quite new opportunities for contact between Catholic and Evangelical Christians that it seemed to open up. I hold it to be quite indisputable that it does indeed represent appreciable progress in objective terms. Nonetheless, as soon as one analyzes it somewhat more closely with respect to both its historical and its factual basis, a whole series of questionable points emerge that make it impossible to stop at that. In the second section, we will attempt a few remarks on the historical side of the problem; meanwhile, we turn directly to the problems of the subject itself, and any investigation of this will probably first of all produce the question: What does “the sufficiency of Scripture” actually mean? Even Geiselmann, as a Catholic theologian, cannot get beyond having to hold fast to Catholic dogmas, and none of them can be obtained by means of sola scriptura—not the early Christian dogmas of the former quinquesaecularis consensus, and still less the new ones of 1854 and 1950. What kind of meaning does talk about “the sufficiency of Scripture” still have, then? Does it not threaten to become a dangerous self-deception, with which we deceive ourselves, first of all, and then others (or perhaps do not in fact deceive them!)? In order to go on maintaining that Scripture contains all revealed truth, on one hand, and, on the other, to maintain that the 1950 dogma is a revealed truth, we would have at least to take refuge in a notion of “sufficiency” so broadly conceived that the word “sufficiency” would lose any serious meaning.
This, however, opens up the second and really decisive question: In concerning ourselves with the idea of the “sufficiency” of Scripture, have we grasped the real problem involved in the concept of tradition at all, or are we lingering over a relatively superficial symptom of an issue that in itself lies much deeper? The introductory reflections from which we started should have made it clear that the answer to this question must clearly be Yes. The question of the sufficiency of Scripture is only a secondary problem within the framework of the far more fundamental decision that we glimpsed a little while ago in the concepts of abusus and auctoritas, and that thus concerns the relationship between the authority of the Church and the authority of Holy Scripture; everything else depends on how we understand that.
To make further progress, it will therefore be necessary to deepen our approach, not being preoccupied with such superficial implications as the sufficiency or insufficiency of Scripture, but presenting as a whole the overall problem of the mode of presence of the revealed word among the faithful. Then we can see that we have to reach beyond the positive sources of Scripture and tradition, to their inner source: the revelation, the living word of God, from which Scripture and tradition both spring and without which neither can be grasped in the importance they have for faith. The question of “Scripture and tradition” remains insoluble so long as it is not expanded to a question of “revelation and tradition” and thereby inserted into the larger context in which it belongs. In what follows, therefore, I should like to unfold the concept of tradition in a positive sense, on the basis of its inner impulse, in thesis form, without going into the details of possible arguments. I do this in the hope that some part of an answer to the Reformers’ question may be found in it and that the whole may thus prove to be a part of a conversation, the necessity of which is being recognized with increasing clarity on both sides.
(Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), God’s Word: Scripture—Tradition—Office, eds. Peter Hünermann, Thomas Söding, trans. Henry Taylor, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008], pp. 48-51.)Yves Congar, O.P. (Roman Catholic Theologian, Historian and Cardinal):
To imagine that the Church, at a given moment in its history, could hold as of a faith a point which had no statable support in Scripture, would amount to thinking that an article of faith could exist without bearing any relation to the centre of revelation, and thus attributing to the Church and its magisterium a gift equivalent to the charism of revelation, unless we postulate, gratuitously, the existence of an esoteric oral apostolic tradition, for which there exists no evidence whatsoever. It is an express principle of Catholic teaching that the Church can only define what has been revealed; faith can only have to do with what is formally guaranteed by God.
Two opinions therefore there are concerning sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The schools of Rome teach Scripture to be so unsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not contain all revealed and supernatural truth, which absolutely is necessary for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved. Others justly condemning this opinion grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply, and in such sort that to do any thing according to any other law were not only unnecessary but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God or things appertaining to God otherwise than as the truth is, though it seem an honour it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation; so we must likewise take great heed, lest in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which indeed it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed. I therefore leave it to themselves to consider, whether they have in this first point or not overshot themselves; which God doth know is quickly done, even when our meaning is most sincere, as I am verily persuaded theirs in this case was.
(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 2.8.7; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: With an Account of His Life and Death: Seventh Edition: Vol. I, ed. John Keble, rev. by R. W. Church & F. Paget, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888], pp. 335-336) See also: ofthelaws.com.
Cf. Francis Turretin:
II. On the state of the question consider: (1) that the question is not whether the Scriptures contain all those things which were said or done by Christ and the saints or have any connection whatever with religion. We acknowledge that many things were done by Christ which are not recorded (Jn. 20:30); also that many things occurred as appendices and supports of religion which are not particularly mentioned in the Scriptures and were left to the prudence of the rulers of the church who (according to the direction of Paul, 1 Cor. 14:40) should see that all things be done decently in the church. The question relates only to things necessary to salvation—whether they belong to faith or to practice; whether all these things are so contained in the Scriptures that they can be a total and adequate rule of faith and practice (which we maintain and our opponents deny).
III. The question is not whether all those things are taught in Scripture word for word (autolexei), or immediately and expressly. We acknowledge that many things are to be deduced by legitimate inference and to be considered as the word of God. But the question is whether they are so contained in Scripture, be they expressly in it or derivable from it by legitimate inference, that there is no need of another and an unwritten (agraphō) rule of faith from which to derive matters of religion and salvation.
…VII. The question is not whether all traditions are to be entirely rejected (for we grant that there may be some use for historical traditions, concerning facts and ritual traditions, concerning rites and ceremonies of free observation). But we here speak only of doctrinal and moral traditions relating to faith and practice, the use of which beside the Scriptures we disapprove.
…IX. The question then amounts to this—whether the Scripture perfectly contains all things (not absolutely), but necessary to salvation; not expressly and in so many words, but equivalently and by legitimate inference, as to leave no place for any unwritten (agraphon) word containing doctrinal or moral traditions. Is the Scripture a complete and adequate rule of faith and practice or only a partial and inadequate rule? We maintain the former; the papists the latter, holding that “unwritten traditions pertaining to faith and practice are to be received with the same regard and reverence as the Scriptures,” Session 4 (Schroeder, pp. 17–20; Bellarmine, VD 4.2, 3, pp. 115–19).
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992], 2.16.2-3, 7, 9, pp. 135, 135, 136.) Return to Article.…because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures; yet [there are] some exceptions, to whom, according to the grace of His long-suffering, as Isaiah said, He has left a seed of salvation, lest your race be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrah. Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 55; trans. ANF, 1:222.) See also: ccel.org.
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (c. ?-183/5 A.D.):
For those who desire it, can, by reading what they uttered, accurately understand the truth, and no longer be carried away by opinion and profitless labour [Οἱ γὰρ βουλόμενοι δύνανται ἐντυχόντες τοῖς διʼ αὐτῶν εἰρημένοις ἀκριβῶς γνῶναι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ μὴ παράγεσθαι ὑπὸ διανοίας καὶ ματαιοπονίας].
(Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2.35; PG, 6:1109; trans. ANF, 2:108.)
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables. They come, [in fine,] to this, that they maintain there is one Being who is proclaimed as God, and another as Father, He who is set forth as such through means of parables and enigmas.
(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.27.2; trans. ANF, 1:398.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures.
(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.27.1; trans. ANF, 1:398.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce [orally, sed per vivam vocem, lit. by a living voice]…
(Irenæus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.1; PG, 7:846; trans. ANF, 1:415.) See also: ccel.org.
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):
And in every Epistle the apostle plainly testifies [manifeste testificatur], that through the flesh of our Lord, and through His blood, we have been saved.
(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 5.14.3; PG, 7:1163; trans. ANF, 1:542.) See also: ccel.org.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A D.):
Wherefore also the Scriptures were translated into the language of the Greeks, in order that they might never be able to allege the excuse of ignorance, inasmuch as they are able to hear also what we have in our hands, if they only wish. One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself.
(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 1.7; trans. ANF, 2:308.) See also: ccel.org.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A D.):
But if from any creature they received in any way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did not nourish them; but committing them to a barren and rainless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the Law, by introducing human teachings,—the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them who believed the Lord’s advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: “For the oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times.” Just as silver often purified, so is the just man brought to the test, becoming the Lord’s coin and receiving the royal image.
(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 6.7; trans. ANF, 2:493-494.) See also: ccel.org.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A D.):
…but what is adapted to living well, that is, the things by which eternal life is gained, should be able to be gathered from the Scriptures by those who read them, gathered at least in their general outline.
(Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, 13.103; trans. FC, 23:91.)
The Epistle to Diognetus (2nd Century A.D.):
Can any man who has been properly taught, and has come to love the Logos, keep from trying to learn precisely what has been shown openly by the Logos to those to whom he manifestly appeared and spoke in the plainest terms?
(The So-Called Letter to Diognetus, 11; trans. LCC, 1:222.)
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 A.D.):
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.
(Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9; trans. ANF, 5:227.) See also: ccel.org.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):
…if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the “manifestation of the Spirit and of power:” of “the Spirit,” on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ…
(Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus, 1.2; trans. ANF, 4:397.) See also: ccel.org.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 213-270 A.D.):
…every divine oracle is in its own nature most clear and perspicuous…the clear and luminous oracles of God…no one can rightly hear a prophet, unless the same Spirit who prophesies bestows on him the capacity of apprehending His words.
(Gregory Thaumaturgus, The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen, 15; trans. ANF, 6:36.) See also: ccel.org.
Archelaus, Bishop of Carrhae (c. 3rd Century A.D.):
And who is so unimpressible and stolid in intellect, as not to see that those sayings of our Lord may suffice him for all cases?
(Archelaus of Carrhae, The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 21; trans. ANF, 6:194.) See also: ccel.org.
Lactantius (c. 250-325 A.D.):
For this is especially the cause why, with the wise and the learned, and the princes of this world, the sacred Scriptures are without credit, because the prophets spoke in common and simple language, as though they spoke to the people.
(Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 5.1; trans. ANF, 7:136.) See also: ccel.org.
Lactantius (c. 250-325 A.D.):
For, being accustomed to sweet and polished speeches or poems, they despise the simple and common language of the sacred writings as mean. For they seek that which may soothe the senses. But whatever is pleasant to the ear effects persuasion, and while it delights fixes itself deeply within the breast. Is God, therefore, the contriver both of the mind, and of the voice, and of the tongue, unable to speak eloquently? Yea, rather, with the greatest foresight, He wished those things which are divine to be without adornment, that all might understand the things which He Himself spoke to all.
(Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 6.21; trans. ANF, 7:188.) See also: ccel.org.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (c. ?-326/8 A.D.):
The religious perspicuity [σαφήνεια] of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame, nor did the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against Him.
(Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius, 1.10; PG, 18:564; trans. ANF, 6:295.) See also: ccel.org.
Constantine I, Emperor of Rome (c. 272-333 A.D.):
“For the gospels” (continued he), “the apostolical writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.” These and similar exhortations he, like an affectionate son, addressed to the bishops as to fathers, labouring to bring about their unanimity in the apostolical doctrines.
(Constantine I; Quoted in: Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6; trans. NPNF2, 3:44.) See also: ccel.org.
Anthony the Great (c. 251-356 A.D.):
‘The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words.
(Anthony the Great; Quoted in: Athanasius of Alexandria, Life of Antony (Vita Antoni), 16; trans. NPNF2, 4:200.) See also: ccel.org.
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):
Now we ought to recognise first of all that God has spoken not for Himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of His utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it.
(Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), 8.43; trans. NPNF2, 9:150.) See also: ccel.org.
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):
The Lord enunciated the faith of the Gospel in the simplest words that could be found, and fitted His discourses to our understanding, so far as the weakness of our nature allowed Him, without saying anything unworthy of the majesty of His own nature.
(Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), 9.40; trans. NPNF2, 9:168.) See also: ccel.org.
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):
Salvation is far from the wicked, because they have not sought the statutes of God; since for no other purpose were they consigned to writing, than that they should come within the knowledge and conceptions of all without exception [Ob id enim longe a peccatoribus salus est, quia non exquisierunt justificationes Dei: cum non utique ob aliud consignatae litteris maneant, quam ut ad universorum scientiam notionemque defluerent].
(Sancti Hilarii Episcopi, Tractatus Super Psalmos, Psalmi CXVIII, Littera XX, §. 5; PL, 9:633; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 246.)
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):
The word of God [speaking expressly of Scripture] has consulted the benefit of all who shall ever live, being itself the best adapted to promote the instruction of mankind in every age [sed universis qui in vitam venirent Dei sermo consuluit, universæ ætati ipse aptissimus ad profectum].
(Sancti Hilarii Episcopi, Tractatus Super Psalmos, Psalmi CXVIII, Prologus: In Cantica Quindecim Graduum, §. 4; PL, 9:643; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 246.)
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable.
(Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes), 1; trans. NPNF2, 4:4.) See also: ccel.org.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):
But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. 3. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved.
(Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes), 45; trans. NPNF2, 4:28.) See also: ccel.org.
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right [Ἔχουσα δὲ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν παράκλησιν, οὔτε ἡμῶν οὔτε ἄλλου τινὸς δεηθήσῃ πρὸς τὸ τὰ δέοντα συνορᾷν, αὐτάρκη τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἔχουσα συμβουλίαν καὶ ὁδηγίαν πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον].
(Basil the Great, Letter 283 [To a Widow]; PG, 32:1020; trans. NPNF2, 8:312. Cf. LCL, 270:173) See also: ccel.org.
Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful, composed by the Spirit for this reason, namely, that we men, each and all of us, as if in a general hospital for souls, may select the remedy for his own condition [Πᾶσα Γραφὰ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, διὰ τοῦτο συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἵνʼ, ὡσπερ ἐν κοινῷ τῶν ψυχῶν ἰατρείῳ, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τὸ ἴαμα τοῦ οἰκείου πάθους ἕκαστος ἐκλεγώμεθα].
(S. Basilii Magni, Homiliæ in Psalmos, Homilia in Psalmum I, §. 1; PG, 29:209; trans. FC, 46:151.)
Ambrosiaster [Pseudo-Ambrose] (fl. c. 366/384 A.D.):
The fact is that Scripture speaks in our own manner so that we may understand [Sed Scriptura more nostro loquitur, ut intelligere possumus].
(Sancti Ambrosii, In Epistolam Beati Pauli Galatas, Caput IV, Vers. 7; PL, 17:360; trans. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, ed. Mark J. Edwards, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999], p. 57.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
Divine Scripture confers salvation on us and is fragrant with the perfume of life, so that he who reads may acquire sweetness and not rush into danger to his own destruction.
(Ambrose of Milan, The Six Days of Creation (Hexameron), 1.2.8.30; trans. FC, 42:34.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
Trust to no one, to guide you, but where the light of that lamp [i. e. Scripture] goes before. For where you think it shines, there is a whirlpool; it seems to shine, but it defiles; and where you think that it is firm or dry, there it is slippery. And, moreover, if you have a lamp, the way is long. Therefore let faith be the guide of your journey; let the divine Scripture be your path. Excellent is the guidance of the heavenly word. From this lamp light your lamp; that the eye of your mind, which is the lamp of your body, may give light. [nulli credas tuum, nisi præeunte lucernæ istius luce, processum. Nam ubi putas quod luceat, gurges est; videtur lucere sed polluit; et ubi putas solidum esse vel siccum, ibi lubricum est. Sed et si lucerna tibi, iter longius sit. Sit ergo fides tibi itineris tui prævia, sit tibi iter Scriptura divina. Bonus est cœlestis ductus eloquii. Ex hac lucerna accende et tu lucernam; ut luceat interior oculus tuus, qui lucerna est tui corporis.]
(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio in Psalmum CXVIII, Sermo Quartus Decimus, §. 11, PL, 15:1394; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 148.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):
I wished that they be arrayed in the unadorned words of Scripture in order that they may gleam in their own light and that in due order they may speak out plainly for themselves. The sun and the moon need no interpreter. The brilliance of their light is all-sufficient—a light that fills the entire world, Faith serves as an illumination for the inspired Word. It is, if I may say so, an intestate witness having no need of another’s testimony, yet it dazzles the eyes of all mankind.
(Ambrose of Milan, Cain and Abel, 1.6.22; trans. FC, 42:380.)
Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 310/20-403 A.D.):
For God is come, and the divine Scriptures explain all things to us clearly; for there is nothing in them difficult or obscure [Ὁ θεὸς γὰρ ἦλθε, καὶ εἰς πάντα ἡμῖν σαφηνίζουσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν αὐταῖς ἐστὶ σκολιὸν ἢ στραγγαλιῶδες].
(S. Epiphanii, Ancoratus, §. 41, PG, 43:89; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 253.)
Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 310/20-403 A.D.):
Everything in the sacred scripture is clear, to those who will approach God’s word with pious reason, and not harbor the devil’s work within them and turn their steps to the pits of death—as this unfortunate man and his converts have attacked the truth more vigorously than any who have become blasphemers of God and his faith before them [Πάντα γὰρ σαφῆ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ τοῖς βουλομένοις εὐσεβεῖ λογισμῷ προσέρχεσθαι τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ καὶ μὴ διαβολικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐγκισσήσαντας ἑαυτοὺς καταστρέφειν εἰς τὰ βάραθρα τοῦ θανάτου, ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἐλεεινὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτῷ πεισθέντες ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐστρατεύσαντο ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς πρὸ αὐτῶν γεγονότας βλασφήμους εἰς θεὸν καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ πίστιν].
(S. Epiphanii, Adversus Hæreses, Lib. III, Tom. I, Hæres LXXVI [Adversus Anomœos, Que est hæresis LVI, sive LXXVI], §. 7; PG, 42:528; trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), trans. Frank Williams, [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994], p. 504.) See also: books.google.com.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.
This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? Well contented should we be if we can be safe with them, let alone without them.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Colossians, Hom. 9 [on Col. 3:16-17]; trans. NPNF1, 13:300-301.) See also: ccel.org.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain [πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα]. But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Hom. 3 [on 2 Thess. 2:5]; PG, 62:485; trans. NPNF1, 13:388.) See also: ccel.org.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Besides, even if any should be so poor, it is in their power, by means of the continual reading of the holy Scriptures which takes place here, to be ignorant of nothing contained in them.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Hom. 11.1; trans. NPNF1, 14:38.) See also: ccel.org.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Having acquitted himself of all this, the good man “departed from Shekim,” the text says, and made haste towards Baithel. Now, observe once again, I ask you, God’s care for him and the way Scripture teaches us everything clearly.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 59.18; trans. FC, 87:175.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. But I am talking about the ungodliness and present madness of the Jews.
(John Chrysostom, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, 1.6.5; trans. FC, 68:23-24.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Great is the profit of the divine Scriptures, and all-sufficient is the aid which comes from them. And Paul declared this when he said, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written aforetime for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Rom. xv. 4, and 1 Cor. x. 11.) For the divine oracles are a treasury of all manner of medicines, so that whether it be needful to quench pride, to lull desire to sleep, to tread under foot the love of money, to despise pain, to inspire confidence, to gain patience, from them one may find abundant resource. For what man of those who struggle with long poverty or who are nailed to a grievous disease, will not, when he reads the passage before us, receive much comfort?
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Hom. 37.1; trans. NPNF1, 14:128.) See also: ccel.org.
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Hence, I beseech you, let us practice the reading of the holy Scriptures with great zeal. This, after all, is the way to fortify our knowledge, too, if we are assiduous in applying ourselves to their contents. I mean, it is not possible for the person who is in touch with the divine message in a spirit of zeal and fervent desire ever to suffer neglect; rather, even should a human teacher not come our way, the Lord himself would come from on high to enlighten our minds, shed light on our thinking, bring to our attention what had slipped our notice, and act as our instructor in what we have no knowledge of—provided we are prepared to contribute what lies in our power. Scripture says, remember, “Do not call anyone on earth your teacher.” When therefore we take an inspired book in our hands, let us concentrate, collect our thoughts and dispel every worldly thought, and let us in this manner do our reading with great devotion, with great attention so that we may be able to be led by the Holy Spirit towards the understanding of the writings and may gain great benefit from them [Ἐπειδὰν οὖν λάβωμεν μετὰ χεῖρας βιβλίον πνευματικὸν, συντείναντες τὸν λογισμὸν, καὶ πᾶσαν βιωτικὴ, ἔννοιαν ἀπωσάμενοι, οὕτω τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν ποιώμεθα μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς εὐλαβείας, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς προσοχῆς, ἵνα δυνηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁδηγηθῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν κατανόησιν τῶν γεγραμμένων, καὶ πολλὴν ἐκεῖθεν τὴν ὠφέλειαν καρπώσασθαι].
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 35.2; PG, 53:321-322 [Homilia XXXV, §. 1]; trans. FC, 82:304-305.)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):
Many other such things there are that beset our soul; and we have need of the divine remedies that we may heal wounds inflicted, and ward off those which, though not inflicted, would else be received in time to come—thus quenching afar off the darts of Satan, and shielding ourselves by the constant reading of the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible—I say, it is not possible, for any one to be secure without constant supplies of this spiritual instruction. Indeed, we may congratulate ourselves, if, constantly using this remedy, we ever are able to attain salvation. But when, though each day receiving wounds, we make use of no remedies, what hope can there be of salvation? …Let us then not neglect the possession of the sacred books, that we receive no fatal injuries. Let us not hoard gold, but lay up, as our treasures, these inspired books. For gold, whenever it becomes abundant, causes trouble to its possessors; but these books, when carefully preserved, afford great benefit to those who possess them. …for as soon as one comes to the gospel, he by a mere look both rectifies his understanding and ceases from all worldly cares. And if careful reading also follows, the soul, as if initiated in sacred mysteries, is thus purified and made better, while holding converse with God through the Scriptures. …Even if you do not understand the contents, your sanctification in a high degree results from it. However, it is impossible that all these things should alike be misunderstood; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Holy Spirit ordained that tax-gatherers, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and goatherds, and uninstructed and illiterate men, should compose these books, that no untaught man should be able to make this pretext; in order that the things delivered should be easily comprehended by all—in order that the handicraftsman, the domestic, the widow, yea, the most unlearned of all men, should profit and be benefited by the reading. …the apostles and prophets . . . as the common instructors of the world, made all that they delivered plain to all men, in order that every one, even unaided, might be able to learn by the mere reading. …For to whom is not the gospel plain? Who is it that hears, “Blessed are the meek; blessed are the merciful; blessed are the pure in heart,” and such things as these, and needs a teacher in order to understand any of the things spoken? …You do not understand the contents of the book? But how can you ever understand, while you are not even willing to look carefully? Take the book in your hand. Read the whole history; and, retaining in your mind the easy parts, peruse frequently the doubtful and obscure parts; and if you are unable, by frequent reading, to understand what is said, go to some one wiser; betake yourself to a teacher; confer with him about the things said. Show great eagerness to learn: then, when God sees that you are using such diligence, He will not disregard your perseverance and carefulness; but if no human being can teach you that which you seek to know, He himself will reveal the whole. …Let us not, beloved, neglect our own salvation! …The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation. This ignorance is the cause of heresies; this it is that leads to dissolute living; this it is that makes all things confused. It is impossible—I say, it is impossible, that any one should remain unbenefited who engages in persevering and intelligent reading. …For many I know well have departed, bearing away abiding profit from the hearing; and if there be some who have not reaped so much benefit, still for that day on which they heard these things, they were rendered in every way better.
(S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Conciones VII de Lazaro, De Lazaro Concio III, §§. 2-3; PG, 48:993-996; trans. Four Discourses of Chrysostom: Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, trans. F. Allen, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869], Discourse III, §§. 2-3, pp. 62-68.) See also: tertullian.org.
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
Scripture speaks in terms of our human frailty that we may the more easily understand [Fragilitate humana loquitur scriptura, ut nos facilius quod dicitur intellegamus].
(Hieronymus, Tractatus in Psalmos, De Psalmo LXXXVII; PL-Supplementum, 2:227; cf. CCSL, 78:400; trans. FC, 57:57 [Homily 65 – On Psalm 87(88)].)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
‘In his record of the peoples the Lord shall tell’: in the sacred writings, in His Scripture that is read to all peoples in order that all may know. Thus the apostles have written; thus the Lord Himself has spoken, not merely for a few, but that all might know and understand [non ut pauci intellegerent, sed ut omnes]. Plato wrote books, but he did not write for all people but only for a few, for there are not many more than two or three men who know him. But the princes of the Church and the princes of Christ did not write only for the few, but for everyone without exception. ‘And princes’: the apostles and the evangelists. ‘Of those who have been born in her.’ Note: ‘who have been’ and not ‘who are.’ That is to make sure that, with the exception of the apostles, whatever else is said afterwards should be removed and not, later on, hold the force of authority. No matter how holy anyone may be after the time of the apostles, no matter how eloquent, he does not have authority [Quamuis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos, quamuis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem], for ‘in his record of the peoples and princes the Lord shall tell of those who have been born in her.’
(Hieronymus, Tractatus in Psalmos, De Psalmo LXXXVI; CCSL, 78:115-116; trans. FC, 48:142-143 [Homily 18 – On Psalm 86(87)].)
Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
‘The Lord shall tell in the writings of peoples and of the princes, of them that have been in her.’ (verse 6) He did not say those who are in her, but those who have been in her. ‘The Lord shall tell;’ and how shall he tell? Not in word, but in writing. In whose writing? That of the peoples? That of the peoples is not sufficient. But he also says in that of the princes; and of what princes? They who are in her? he did not say this, but who have been in her.
See, therefore, how full the Holy Scriptures are of sacraments (sacramentis, symbols). We read of the Apostle Paul, we read of Peter, and we read of him (Paul) saying, ‘Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?’ (2 Cor. xiii. 3) And what Paul speaks, Christ speaks; for ‘He who receiveth you receiveth me.’ (Matt. x. 40) Therefore our Lord and Savior telleth us, and speaketh in the writings of His princes. The Lord will tell in the writings of the peoples, in the Holy Writings. Which writing is read by all the people, that is, that all may understand. He saith what this is. As the apostles have written so also the Lord Himself; that is, He hath spoken by His evangelists, and that not a few, but that all may understand [non ut pauci intelligerent, sed ut omnes].
Plato wrote writings, but he wrote not for the peoples, but for the few. For scarcely three men understand him. These indeed, that is, the princes of the Church and princes of Christ, have not written for a few, but for the whole people. And of the princes, that is, of the apostles, and evangelists of those who have been in her. See ye what he says. Who have been, not who are; that, the apostles excepted, whatever else is said afterwards is cut off, hath no authority afterwards. Although, therefore, anyone after the apostles, although he may be eloquent, he hath no authority [Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos: quamvis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem], because ‘The Lord shall tell in the writing of peoples, and of these princes that have been in her.’
(S. Hieronymi, Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus LXXXVI; PL, 26:1083-1084; trans. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867], pp. 481-482.)
Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):
What is the function of commentators? They expound the statements of someone else; they express in simple language views that have been expressed in an obscure manner; they quote the opinions of many individuals and they say: ‘Some interpret this passage in this sense, others, in another sense’; they attempt to support their own understanding and interpretation with these testimonies in this fashion, so that the prudent reader, after reading the different interpretations and studying which of these many views are to be accepted and which rejected, will judge for himself which is the more correct; and, like the expert banker, will reject the falsely minted coin.
(Jerome of Stridon, The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus, 1.16; trans. FC, 53:79.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
You exaggerate “how difficult the knowledge of the sacred scriptures is,” claiming that “it is suited for only the learned few,”...
(Augustine of Hippo, Answer to Julian, 5.1.2; trans. WSA, I/24:432.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
“Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast made perfect praise,” that they should begin by belief in the Scriptures, who would arrive at the knowledge of Thy glory: which hath been raised above the Scriptures, in that it passeth by and transcends the announcements of all words and languages. Therefore hath God lowered the Scriptures even to the capacity of babes and sucklings, as it is sung in another Psalm, “And He lowered the heaven, and came down:” and this did He because of the enemies, who through pride of talkativeness, being enemies of the cross of Christ, even when they do speak some truth, still cannot profit babes and sucklings.
(Augustine of Hippo, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, 8.8; trans. NPNF1, 8:29. Cf. WSA, III/15:133.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Nor is that any reason why they should be crowed over by that holy and perfect man Antony, the Egyptian monk, who is said to have known the divine Scriptures by heart simply through hearing them, though he himself didn’t know how to read, and to have understood their meaning through intelligent reflection on them; or for that matter by that barbarian slave, a Christian, about whom we have recently been informed by the most serious and trustworthy men.
(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), Prologue, §. 4; trans. WSA, I/11:102. Cf. NPNF1, 2:519-520.)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
…such is the depth of the Christian Scriptures, that even if I were attempting to study them and nothing else from early boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and talents greater than I have, I would be still daily making progress in discovering their treasures; not that there is so great difficulty in coming through them to know the things necessary to salvation, but when any one has accepted these truths with the faith that is indispensable as the foundation of a life of piety and uprightness, so many things which are veiled under manifold shadows of mystery remain to be inquired into by those who are advancing in the study, and so great is the depth of wisdom not only in the words in which these have been expressed, but also in the things themselves, that the experience of the oldest, the ablest, and the most zealous students of Scripture illustrates what Scripture itself has said: “When a man hath done, then he beginneth.”
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 137.1.3 [To Volusianus]; trans. NPNF1, 1:474.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Believe me, whatever there is in these Scriptures, it is lofty and divine: there is in them altogether truth, and a system of teaching most suited to refresh and renew minds: and clearly so ordered in measure, as that there is no one but may draw thence, what is enough for himself, if only he approach to draw with devotion and piety, as true religion demands.
(Augustine of Hippo, On the Profit of Believing (De Utilitate Credendi), 13; PL, 42:74 [Cap. VI, §. 13]; trans. NPNF1, 3:353.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 137.5.18 [To Volusianus]; trans. NPNF1, 1:480.) See also: ccel.org.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
The person who reads some writing out loud to other listeners obviously knows what he is pronouncing, while the one who teaches people in literacy classes does this so that they too may know how to read. Each of them, all the same, is handing on what he has received. In the same sort of way those too who explain to an audience what they understand in the scriptures are, as it were, performing the office of reader and pronouncing letters they know, while those who lay down rules about how they are to be understood are like the person who teaches literacy, who gives out the rules, that is, on how to read. So just as the person who knows how to read does not require another reader, when he gets hold of a volume, to tell him what is written in it, in the same way, those who have grasped the rules we are endeavoring to pass on will retain a knowledge of these rules, like letters, when they come across anything obscure in the holy books, and will not require another person who understands to uncover for them what is shrouded in obscurity. Instead, by following up certain clues, they will be able themselves to get the hidden meaning of a passage without any error—or at the very least to avoid falling into any absurdly wrongheaded opinion.
(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), Prologue, §. 9; trans. WSA, I/11:104. Cf. NPNF1, 2:521.)
John Cassian (c. 360-435 A.D.):
This man therefore, when some of the brethren were wondering at the splendid light of his knowledge and were asking of him some meanings of Scripture, said that a monk who wanted to acquire a knowledge of the Scriptures ought not to spend his labour on the works of commentators, but rather to keep all the efforts of his mind and intentions of his heart set on purifying himself from carnal vices: for when these are driven out, at once the eyes of the heart, as if the veil of the passions were removed, will begin as it were naturally to gaze on the mysteries of Scripture: since they were not declared to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit in order that they should remain unknown and obscure [Siquidem nobis non ut essent incognita vel obscura, sancti Spiritus gratia promulgata sunt]; but they are rendered obscure by our fault, as the veil of our sins covers the eyes of the heart, and when these are restored to their natural state of health, the mere reading of Holy Scripture is by itself amply sufficient for beholding the true knowledge [ipsa Scripturarum sanctarum lectio ad contemplationem veræ scientiæ abunde etiam sola sufficiat], nor do they need the aid of commentators [nec eos commentatorum institutionibus indigere], just as these eyes of flesh need no man’s teaching how to see, provided that they are free from dimness or the darkness of blindness. For this reason there have arisen so great differences and mistakes among commentators because most of them, paying no sort of attention towards purifying the mind, rush into the work of interpreting the Scriptures, and in proportion to the density or impurity of their heart form opinions that are at variance with and contrary to each other’s and to the faith, and so are unable to take in the light of truth.
(John Cassian, The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia (De Cœnobiorum Institutis Libri Duodecim), 5.34; PL, 49:250-254; trans. NPNF2, 11:245.) See also: ccel.org.
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things. . . . . . What that is profitable to us is not spoken by it? For, first, (what is also more excellent than all other things,) any one may see in it the glorious doctrine of the true knowledge of God. . . . . . Moreover, in addition to this, it teaches us how to order aright our life and conversation, and by its divine and sacred laws directs us in the way of righteousness, and makes the path of all equity clear to us. [Ἀπόχρη μὲν οὖν ἡ θεόπνευστος Γραφὴ καὶ πρός γε τὸ δεῖν ἀποφάναι σοφοὺς καὶ δοκιμωτάτους, καὶ διαρκεστάτην ἔχοντας σύνεσιν τοὺς ἐντεθραμμέους αὐτῇ· ...Τί γὰρ τῶν ὀνησιφόρων οὐκ εἴρηται παρʼ αὐτῆς; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὅ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τιμαλφέστερον, κατίδοι τις ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεοπτίας ἐναστράπτοντας λόγους. ...Εἶτα πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τῆς εὐζωΐας ἡμῖν εἰσηγῆται τρόπους, νόμοις δὲ θείοις καὶ ἱεροῖς ἀπευθύνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ μὴν καὶ ἁπάσης ἡμῖν ἐπιεικείας ἐναργῆ καθίστησι τρίβον.]
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Contra Julianum, Lib. VII; PG, 76:852-853; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], pp. 282-283.)Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
Such subtle and out-of-the-way problems do not require a doctrinal decision so much as a questioning and speculative investigation accompanied by a refusal to let the mind fall into improper views or be carried away from reasonableness. For it is written ‘seeking do thou seek and dwell with me’. How can one clearly explain what holy writ has not stated clearly? For example it is written in the book of Genesis that in the beginning God made heaven and earth. Holy writ declared that he has made it and we accept this truth in faith. But meddlesome inquiry into the means, origin or method whereby heaven, earth and the rest of creation were brought into being has its harmful side, for there is no need to involve the mind in profundities. What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence [ὅσα τοίνυν μὴ σφόδρα σαφῶς ἡ θεία λέγει γραφή, ταῦτα χρὴ λανθάνειν καὶ ἐν σιωπῇ παρατρέχειν].
(Cyril of Alexandria, Doctrinal Questions and Answers, 2; trans. Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, ed. & trans. Lionel R. Wickham, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1983], pp. 187, 189.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
By the foolishness of preaching he means the plainness of the phraseology of the inspired Scripture. Therefore, leaving off toiling in vain and reaping no fruit, and enduring to spend your labors upon things that are unprofitable, hear me rather, and eat that which is good, namely, through the Evangelical proclamations, in which, saith he, your soul would abundantly delight, and be nourished. There is the true knowledge of God as he is, and instruction as to all virtue and propriety of conduct, becoming saints; and wisdom, such as with wonderful exactness rightly discerns everything that ought to be done, and perfectly fits the mind for activity in good works. [Μωρίαν δὲ τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν κοινότητα τῆς λέξεως τῆς ἐνούσης τῇ θεοπνεύτῳ Γραφῇ, φησίν. Ἀφέντες οὖν τὸ εἰκῆ πονεῖν, καὶ ἀκαρπίαν συλλέγειν, καὶ δαπανᾷν ἀνέχεσθαι πόνους ἐπʼ ἀνωφελέσι πράγμασι, μᾶλλον ἀκούσατέ μου, καὶ φάγεσθε ἀγαθὰ τὰ διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν δηλονότι, οἷς δὴ καὶ περιττῶς, φησὶν, ἐντρυφήσειεν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν. Ἐκεῖ γνῶσις ἀληθὴς τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης καὶ ἀγιοπρεποῦς εὐκοσμίας μάθημα καὶ σύνεσις, θαυμαστῶς ἕκαστα τῶν πρακτέων ὀρθῶς διακρίνοντα, καὶ τεχνίτην εἰς ἀγαθουργίαν ἀποτελοῦσα τὸν νοῦν·]
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Commentarium in Isaiam Prophetam, Lib. V, Tom. II, Cap. LV, Vers. 1, 2; PG, 70:1221; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], pp. 181-182.)
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):
But some one will say, that the divine scripture hath a style and diction common to all, vulgar and trite; whereas the things of the Greeks are expressed elegantly, and abound in grace and eloquence. We say, therefore, that the prophetical and Mosaic books are expressed in the Hebrew language; and, in order that they might be known to all, small and great, are usefully committed to a familiar diction, so as to transcend no man’s capacity. [Ἀλλʼ, ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις, ἡ μὲν θεία Γραφὴ κοινήν τε καὶ ἀγελαίαν, καὶ ἅπασι κατημαξευμένην ἔχει τὴν λέξιν· εὐστομεῖ δὲ τὰ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ καταπλουτεῖ τὸ ἐπίχαρι, καὶ πρός γε τούτῳ τὸ εὐεπές. Φαμὲν οὖν, ὅτι γλώττη μὲν Ἑβραίων ἐλαλήθη τὰ προφητῶν, καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ Μωσέως, ἵνα καὶ ὑπάρχῃ γνώριμα μικροῖς καὶ μεγάλοις, μετεποιήθη χρησίμως εἰς τὸ τῆς γλώττης εὐτριβὲς καὶ δυσέφικτον ἐχούσης παντελῶς οὐδές.]
(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Contra Julianum, Lib. VII; PG, 76:853; trans. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. & ed. William Fitzgerald, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1849], p. 399.)
Isidore of Pelusium (c. ?-450 A.D.):
If God had had respect only to his own dignity, and not the profit of the reader, he would have used heavenly and divine words and examples. But since he was legislating for men that are weak and in need of human words (for thus they were able easily to understand things above them), he expressed his divine doctrines in common words, to the intent that even a woman and a child, and the most ignorant of all men, might obtain some profit even from the very hearing. For, the word having a consideration for the salvation of the multitude, and even rustics, is expressed with so much clearness [σαφηνείᾳ τοσαύτῃ] through the philanthropy of the legislator, as to deprive no one of the benefit proportioned to his powers; nor hath it neglected the wiser of mankind; for in this so great clearness [τοσαύτῃ γὰρ σαφηνείᾳ], such unutterable words dwell like treasures, that even the wisest and most learned of men are lost in the profundity of the thoughts, and often confess themselves overcome by the incomprehensibility of the wisdom. [Εἰ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀξίαν μόνον προσέσχεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὠφέλειαν τῶν ἐντευξομένων, οὐρανίοις ἂν καὶ θείοις λόγοις τε καὶ παραδείγμασιν ἐχρήσατο. Ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ ἀνθρώποις ἐνομοθέτε: ἀσθενέσι τυγχάνουσι, καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων δεομένοις λόγων (οὕτω γὰρ ῥᾳδίως τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτοὺς νοῆσαι ἠδύναντο), ἰδιωτικαῖς λέξεσιν ἐκέρασε τὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, ἵνα καὶ γυνὴ καὶ παῖς καὶ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀμαθέστατος κερδάνῃ τι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀκροάσεως. Τῆς γὰρ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ἀγελαιοτέρων φροντίσας σωτηρίας ὁ λόγος, σαφηνείᾳ τοσαύτῃ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν τοῦ νομοθέτου κραθεὶς, οὐδένα τῆς κατὰ δύναμιν ὠφελείας ἀποστερεῖ. Οὔτε δὲ τῶν σοφωτέρων ἠμέλησεν. Ἐν τοσαύτῃ γὰρ σαφηνείᾳ οὕτως ἀπόῤῥητοι λόγοι καθάπερ θησαυροί τινες ἐνοικοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ τοὺς σοφωτάτους καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ βάθος τῶν νοημάτων ἰλιγγιᾷν, καὶ παραχωρεῖν πολλάκις τῷ ἀκαταλήπτῳ τῆς σοφίας.]
(S. Isidori Pelusiotæ, Epistolarum, Lib. II, Epist. V; PG, 78:461, 464; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 284.)
Isidore of Pelusium (c. ?-450 A.D.):
If the truth be joined to eloquent language, it is able to profit the educated, but to all others it will be of no use or advantage. Wherefore the Scripture hath declared the truth in simple language [ἡ Γραφὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πεζῷ λόγῳ ἡρμήνευσεν], that both the unlearned and the wise, and even children and women, might learn it. For by this the wise are in no respect injured; but by the other [i. e. Scripture being indited in superior language] the greater part of the world would have been injured; and if it behoved it to consider the few, it more especially behoved it to consider the many; and since it has considered all, it is clearly shown to be divine and heavenly. [Εἰ δʼ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῇ καλλιεπείᾳ συναφθείη, δύναται μὲν τοὺς πεπαδευμένους ὠφελῆσαι, τοῖς δʼ καὶ ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἄχρηστος ἔσται καὶ ἀνωφελής. Διʼ ὅ καὶ ἡ Γραφὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πεζῷ λόγῳ ἡρμήνευσεν, ἵνα καὶ ἰδιῶται, καὶ σοφοὶ, καὶ παῖδες, καὶ γυναῖκες μάθοιεν. Ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τούτου οἱ οὐδὲν παραβλάπτονται· ἐκ δʼ ἐκείνου τὸ πλέον τῆς οἰκουμένης μέρος παρεβλάβη. Ἄν τινων οὖν ἐχρῆν φροντίσαι, μάλιστι μὲν τῶν πλειόνων. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ καὶ πάντων ἐφρόντισε, δείκνυται λαμπρῶς θεία οὖσα καὶ οὐράνιος.]
(S. Isidori Pelusiotæ, Epistolarum, Lib. IV, Epist. LXVII; PG, 78:1125; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 284.)
Isidore of Pelusium (c. ?-450 A.D.):
If all things were plain, where should we make use of our understanding, there not being any investigation to make? But if all things were obscure, thus also we should fall, there being no discovery of the truth. But now, through those parts that are plain, those that are obscure are in a manner understood. [Εἰ μὲν γὰρ πάντα ἦν δῆλα, ποῦ τῇ συνέσει ἐχρησάμεθα, μὴ οὔσης ζητήσεως; Εἰ δὲ πάντα ἄδηλα, καὶ οὕτως ἀναπεπτώκειμεν ἂν, μὴ οὔσης εὑρέσεως. Νῦν δὲ διὰ τῶν δῆλων, καὶ τὰ ἄδηλα τρόπον τινὰ καταλαμβάνεται.]
(S. Isidori Pelusiotæ, Epistolarum, Lib. IV, Epist. LXXXII; PG, 78:1144-1145; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 285.)
Isidore of Pelusium (c. ?-450 A.D.):
The sacred and heavenly oracles, since they were spoken and written for the benefit of all mankind, were expressed in plain language . . . . All those who are engaged in husbandry, and the arts, and other occupations of life, derive profit from its clearness; learning both what is proper and what is just and what is useful in a moment of time. [οἱ δὲ ἱεροὶ καὶ οὐράνιοι χρησμοὶ, ἐπειδὴ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐῤῥέθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν, τῇ σαφηνείᾳ ἐκράθησαν . . . . πάντες δʼ οἱ γεωργίαις καὶ τέχναις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀσχολίαις τοῦ βίου σχολάζοντες, ὠφελοῦνται ἐκ τῆς σαφηνείας· καὶ τὸ πρέπον, καὶ τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ συμφέρον ἐν ἀκαριαίᾳ καιροῦ ῥοπῇ μανθάνοντες.]
(S. Isidori Pelusiotæ, Epistolarum, Lib. IV, Epist. XCI; PG, 78:1152; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 285.)
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
Some persons having become affected with this disease of mind, have undertaken to accuse the divine Scripture, and especially the prophecies, as if they were obscure. To whom the divine Paul would say, ‘But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost;’ for ‘we speak wisdom among them that are perfect.’ And agreeable to these are the words. spoken by our Master and Saviour to the holy Apostles, ‘To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but to them it is not given.’ And teaching them the cause of this, he directly adds, ‘For, seeing they see not, and hearing they do not understand;’ for they, saith he, willingly draw upon themselves the cloud of ignorance; for if they had turned to the Lord, as the divine Apostle says, the veil would be removed. Therefore the divine oracles are not obscure to all, but only to those who are willingly blind. [Ταύτῃ περιπεσόντες τῇ νόσῳ τινὲς τῆς θείας Γραφῆς κατ ηγορεῖν ἐπεχείρησαν, διαφερόντως δὲ τῶν προφητι κῶν θεσπισμάτων, ὡς ἀσαφείᾳ κεκαλυμμένων. Πρὸς οὓς ἂν εἰκότως ὁ θεσπέσιος εἴποι Παῦλος· «Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλυμμένον τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκαλυμμμένον· σοφίαν γὰρ λαλοῦ μεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις.» Συμφωνεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Δεσπότου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους εἰρημένα· «Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυ στήρια τῆς βασιλείας, ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται·» καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν διδάσκων εὐθὺς ἐπάγει, ὅτι «Βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσι, καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐ συνιοῦσιν.» Αὐτοὶ γὰρ, φησὶν, ἑκόντες ἐπισπῶνται τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ νέφος· ἐὰν γὰρ ἐπιστρέψωσι πρὸς Κύριον, ᾗ φησιν ὁ θεῖος Ἀπόστολος, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. Οὐ τοίνυν πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἀσαφῆ τὰ θεῖα, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐθελουσίως τυφλώττουσιν·]
(Beati Theodoreti, In Divini Ezechielis Prophetiam Interpretatio, Argumentum (Præfatio); PG, 81:808-809; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 286. Alt. Trans. Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets: Volume Two: Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Robert Charles Hill, [Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], Preface, pp. 27-28.)
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):
Let no one therefore, and especially among the pupils of piety, be so bold against the divine Spirit as to charge His words with obscurity; but earnestly seeking to understand the sacred words, let him exclaim with the divine David, ‘Open thou mine eyes, and I shall behold wondrous things out of thy law.’ For he who seeks this knowledge for his profit shall assuredly obtain his request. [Μηδεὶς τοίνυν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας τρο φίμων, κατὰ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος θρασυνέσθω, τοῖς τούτου λόγοις ἀσάφειαν ἐπιμεμφόμενος· ἀλλὰ νοῆσαι τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἐφιέμενος λόγους μετὰ τοῦ θεσπεσίου βοάτω Δαβίδ· «Ἀποκάλυψον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου, καὶ κατανοήσω τὰ θαυμάσια ἐκ τοῦ νόμου σου.» Τεύξεται γὰρ πάντως τῆς αἰτήσεως, ἐπʼ ὠφελείᾳ τὴν γνῶσιν ἐπαγγείλας.]
(Beati Theodoreti, In Divini Ezechielis Prophetiam Interpretatio, Argumentum (Præfatio); PG, 81:809; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: In Three Volumes: Vol. III: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 286. Alt. Trans. Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets: Volume Two: Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Robert Charles Hill, [Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], Preface, p. 29.)
Salvian the Presbyter (c. 5th Century A.D.):
‘In a word, holy deeds would be done by Christians if Christ has taught holy things. He who is worshiped can be judged by His worshippers. For how is a teacher good whose pupils we see are so evil? From this viewpoint, they are Christians; they listen to Him, they read Him. It is easy for all to understand the teaching of Christ. See what the Christians do and you clearly see what Christ teaches.’
(Salvian the Presbyter, The Governance of God, 4.17; trans. FC, 3:120-121.)
Salvian the Presbyter (c. 5th Century A.D.):
I could answer with reason and with sufficient constancy: ‘I do not know,’ because I do not know the secret councils of God. The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read.
The Scriptures are clear and perspicuous in all things necessary to salvation. We allow that there are doctrines revealed in the Scriptures which surpass the comprehension of created beings, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal generation and the incarnation of the Son of God. These are mysteries which we cannot comprehend, but the doctrines themselves are plainly taught in the Scriptures, and we must receive them on the divine testimony. We also admit that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and “hard to be understood.” But this obscurity is chiefly in history and prophecies, which do not so nearly concern our salvation. As in nature everything necessary for the support of life occurs almost everywhere, and may be found on the most easy search, while other things less necessary, such as its gems and gold, lie concealed in certain places, and can only be discovered and obtained by great exertions and unwearied industry; so there are things in the Scriptures, ignorance of which will not endanger the salvation of the soul, that are abstruse and difficult to be understood, even by those who possess acute minds and great learning. But we maintain, that all those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that every serious inquirer, in the due use of ordinary means, may understand them. This may be inferred from the fact that their author is God. If he intended them to be a rule of faith and life to men, surely he has adapted them to the understandings of men. There are numerous injunctions to read and search the Scriptures, but these necessarily imply that they are perspicuous and intelligible. Christians are also commended for searching the Scriptures, and trying by the written Word the doctrines delivered to them—Acts xviii. 11.
(Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines: Eighth Edition, [Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1857], on WCF 1.7, p. 15.) Return to Article.11. How can the perspicuity of Scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?
We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching, is to charge God with dealing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.
12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?
Ps. xix. 7, 8; cxix. 105, 130; 2 Cor. iii. 14; 2 Pet. i. 18, 19; Hab. ii. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17.
13. By what other arguments may this point be established?
1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as such.—Deut. vi. 4-9; Luke i. 3; Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1; iv. 2; Gal. i. 2; Eph. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 2; James i. 1; 1 Peter i. 1; 2 Peter i. 1; 1 John ii. 12, 14; Jude i. 1; Rev. i. 3, 4; ii. 7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.
2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search the Scriptures.—2 Tim. iii. 15, 17; Acts xvii. 11; John v. 39.
3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.
4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.
. . . 19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?
That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God’s revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:
1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.
2d. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.
3d. All Christians are commanded to search the Scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.—John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11; Gal. i. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 John iv. 1, 2.
4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John xx. 23 with Luke xxiv. 47-49; 1 John ii. 20, 27; Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it “purify the heart.” Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.—John xvii. 17, 19; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 22.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], pp. 85-86, 89-90.) See also: monergism.com. Return to Article.And yet it is easy to show that it is in the nature of things impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by their being themselves made infallible; and I shall hereafter show you that when men profess faith in the Church’s infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own.
It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other. They are fond of contrasting the peace, and certainty, and assurance of him whose faith rests on the rock of an infallible Church, with the uncertainty of him whose belief rests only on the shifting sands of his own fallible judgment. But it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy—Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, and soforth—and come to our own conclusion on each; or we may apply our private judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infallible, and, if we decide that it is, take all our religious opinions thenceforward on trust from her. But it is clear that our certainty that any of the things she teaches us is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty we have that our private judgment has decided the question rightly whether we ought to submit unreservedly to her teaching; and it will appear, before we have done, that this is at least as difficult a question as any in the controversy.
(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: Fourth Edition, [Searcy: James D. Bales, 1948; original - London: John Murray, 1914], pp. 47-48.) See also: books.google.com (1914 ed.).
Cf. George Salmon:
But to return. There cannot be a plainer proof that men’s so-called certainty does not always correspond with the reality of things, than the fact that there may be opposing certainties. Dr. Newman, for instance, is certain the Pope is infallible, and I am certain he is not. Dr. Newman would get over this by calling his strong conviction certainty, and giving to mine some weaker name. But what is this but assuming that he is infallible, and I am not? And when he refuses to revise his former judgment that the Church of Rome is infallible, notwithstanding that since he came to it the Pope has made two decisions which, if Newman were free to exercise his own judgment, he would pronounce to be wrong, what is this but assuming that he was infallible at the time of his former judgment?
(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: Fourth Edition, [Searcy: James D. Bales, 1948; original - London: John Murray, 1914], p. 77.) See also: books.google.com (1914 ed.).
Cf. George Salmon:
But I must bring you back to the point with which I commenced, namely, that it is absurd for Roman Catholics to disparage private judgment, or make light of the kind of certainty we can obtain by its means, since their belief, as well as ours, must ultimately rest on an act of their private judgment, and can have no higher certainty than whatever that is capable of yielding. If they use their private judgment on no other question, they must use it on the question. Are we bound to submit implicitly to the authority of the Church of Rome? The result is, that absolute certainty can only be had on the terms of being infallible one’s self. A man may say, ‘I am absolutely certain that I am right in my religious opinions, because I believe what the Pope believes, and he is absolutely certain not to believe wrong.’ But then comes the question, ‘How come you to be absolutely certain that the Pope is absolutely certain not to believe wrong?’
(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: Fourth Edition, [Searcy: James D. Bales, 1948; original - London: John Murray, 1914], p. 53.) See also: books.google.com (1914 ed.). Return to Article.It is important that the wide range of the idea should be recognized. Infallibility is claimed in some measure or degree in a large number of regions of human activity. While the ecclesiastical and political uses are the most familiar as themes of literary and academic discussion, others deserve mention in an article like this, since the analogies they present are valuable, and have undoubtedly lent support to the former. Wherever in human affairs authority is respected and truth recognized, a degree of infallibility appropriate to the circumstances is implied. Usually the quality of perfect trustworthiness is attributed simply to the object, person, or institution in which it is believed to reside. But in reality it is also implied that the mind which recognizes infallibility has itself formed an infallible, an absolutely trustworthy, judgment, whether directly on the basis of evidence before itself, or indirectly on the basis of evidence accepted by a reputed infallible, external witness or authority, such as tradition, usage, or a living organization. Nothing assists the student of infallibility more effectively to appreciate its essential complexity and subtlety than a swift glance at the less notorious and controversial regions of life in which it is acknowledged to be operative.
(William A. Curtis, “Infallibility;” In: Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Volume VII: Hymns–Liberty, eds. James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915], 258.) Return to Article.
No comments:
Post a Comment