Evangelical Answers : Sola Scriptura in Church History: A Survey of Patristic Literature

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Sola Scriptura in Church History: A Survey of Patristic Literature

Note: Click here for a list of the abbreviations used in the bibliographical citations.

Outline.

i. Prolegomena.

ii. Defining Sola Scriptura.

1. The Only Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice.

2. Scripture and Tradition.

2.1. Custom (Tradition) vs. Truth.

3. The Sufficiency of Scripture.

4. The Perspicuity (Clarity and Understandability) of Scripture.

5. Scripture Interprets Scripture: The “Analogy of Faith.”

5.1. Excursus: Defining the “Analogy of Faith.”

i. Prolegomena. Return to Outline.

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.

ii. Defining 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.

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.)

Cf. 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. …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.)

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.)

Note: 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 the Church. The Church is authoritative, possessing the ability to bind the conscience, however that authority is binding (legitimate) only in-so-far as it is consistent with the holy Scriptures. Furthermore, just as each individual child must judge for themselves whether or not the commands of their parents have violated (or are consistent with) God’s law, so too must each individual do the same with the authority exercised by the Church.

Note: Click here for more on the necessity of private interpretation.

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.)

Note: Click here for additional information accurately defining the historical concept of Sola Scriptura.

1. The Only Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice. Return to Outline.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258 A.D.):

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.

Cf. 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).

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

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. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

2. Scripture and Tradition. Return to Outline.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

…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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.):

(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.

Cf. 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):

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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

2.1. Custom (Tradition) vs. Truth. Return to Outline.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

3. The Sufficiency of Scripture. Return to Outline.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

(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.

Cf. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):

(Irenæus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; PG, 7:844; trans. ANF, 1:414.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. 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.):

(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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

(Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (De Synodis), 1.6; trans. NPNF2, 4:453.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

(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.):

(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):

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.

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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.):

(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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(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.):

(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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

4. The Perspicuity (Clarity and Understandability) of Scripture. Return to Outline.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

…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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.):

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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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)].)

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

(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.):

(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.)

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

(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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.

Cf. 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.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 93.10.35 [To Vincentius]; PL, 33:338-339; trans. NPNF1, 1:395.) See also: ccel.org.

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.):

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. 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.)

Cf. Salvian the Presbyter (c. 5th Century A.D.):

(Salvian the Presbyter, The Governance of God, 3.1; trans. FC, 3:68.)

5. Scripture Interprets Scripture: The “Analogy of Faith.” Return to Outline.

G. L. Prestige:

Orthodox thinkers [i.e. the Church Fathers] did much the same, it is true; but their Fundamentalism was tempered by their acceptance of allegorical methods of interpretation, and they showed a far profounder sense of the need to interpret the Scriptures as a whole by comparing one passage with another. The Arians on the other hand, like most people of schismatical temper, really neglected the Bible in order to concentrate on a few selected texts.

(G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, [London: S.P.C.K, 1964], p. 147.)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.

(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.10.1; trans. ANF, 1:370.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.

(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.28.3; trans. ANF, 1:400.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Behr (Eastern Orthodox Priest, Theologian and Historian):

…Irenaeus implies that it is on the basis of Scripture that Scripture should be understood. Irenaeus states this principle formally in Against the Heresies: “the demonstrations (ostensiones) [of things contained] in the Scriptures cannot be demonstrated except from the Scriptures themselves.” (AH 3:12:9). If some passages of Scripture appear to us to be obscure, we should seek to understand them by what is clear and manifest in Scripture and not by any other extraneous reasoning (cf. AH 2:27-28).

It is precisely for having based their interpretation of Scripture upon non-Scriptural principles that Irenaeus criticizes the Gnostics. . . . (AH 1:8:1).

(St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, trans. John Behr, [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997], p. 24.)

Cf. D. Jeffrey Bingham:

Note: Published by The Catholic University of America Press.

Note: κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (“the canon of truth”).

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.

(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, 20; trans. ANF, 3:615.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

Well, if it occurs occasionally in certain portions of it, you will say, then why not in that phrase, where the resurrection might be spiritually understood? There are several reasons why not. First, what must be the meaning of so many important passages of Holy Scripture, which so obviously attest the resurrection of the body, as to admit not even the appearance of a figurative signification? And, indeed, (since some passages are more obscure than others), it cannot but be right—as we have shown above—that uncertain statements should be determined by certain ones, and obscure ones by such as are clear and plain; else there is fear that, in the conflict of certainties and uncertainties, of explicitness and obscurity, faith may be shattered, truth endangered, and the Divine Being Himself be branded as inconstant.

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 21; trans. ANF, 3:560.) See also: ccel.org.

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):

The worldly man cannot receive the faith of the Apostle, nor can any language but that of the Apostle explain his meaning. God raised Christ from the dead; Christ in Whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. But He quickened us also together with Him, forgiving us our sins, blotting out the bond of the law of sin, which through the ordinances made aforetime was against us, taking it out of the way, and fixing it to His cross, stripping Himself of His flesh by the law of death, holding up the powers to shew, and triumphing over them in Himself.

(Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), 9.10; trans. NPNF2, 9:158.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. D. H. Williams:

In keeping with the practice of previous ancient commentators, Hilary perceives the Gospel text as a literary whole, and its message as a doctrinal unity. If the Gospel is allowed to speak for itself, the inquirer will be able to find in any given pericope a general coherence. The reader does not bring his or her own interpretation to the text. Whether obvious or hidden, the meaning of the text is already within the text. Hilary also operates on the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture.

(St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 125, trans. D. H. Williams, [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012], “Introduction,” p. 12.)

Note: Published by The Catholic University of America Press.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.):

What seems to be said in an ambiguous and veiled way in certain passages of inspired Scripture is made plain by the obvious meaning of other passages. [Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμέων σαφηνίζεται.]

(Basil the Great, The Shorter Rules (Regulæ Brevius Tractatæ), 267; PG, 31:1264; trans. Translations of Christian Literature Series I. Greek Texts: The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, trans. W. K. L. Clarke, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925], p. 329.)

Cf. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.):

You could find many passages of this sort in the writings of the evangelists and the Apostle. Now, then, if a command be given and the manner of carrying it out is not added, let us obey the Lord, who says: ‘Search the Scriptures.’ Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as to the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place.

(Basil the Great, Concerning Baptism (De Baptismo), Bk. 2, Q. 4; PG, 31:1589; trans. FC, 9:399.)

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

In most places [in plerisque] Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser. [in plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.]

(S. Ambrosii, Epistola 37.1; PL, 16:1084; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged: Vol. III, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 262.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

…and also because his discourses are so fully, for the most part, the interpreters of his meaning, that the expounder of them finds nothing to add of his own, and, if he would say ought, fills the part of a critic rather than of a preacher.

(S. Ambrosii, Epistola 37.1; PL, 16:1084; trans. A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: The Letters of S. Ambrose, [Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1881], p. 235.)

Cf. Stephen Andrew Cooper:

The translation of this section of epistle 7 (= Ep. 54, 268 ff.) in the Fathers of the Church series is not reliable.

(Stephen Andrew Cooper, Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians, Oxford Early Christian Studies, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], “Introduction,” p. 118.) Preview.

Cf. FC, 26:286.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):

Anyhow, in case by wanting to make a display of these people’s stupidity we, too, find ourselves induced to utter unseemly remarks, let’s have done with their folly and turn aside from such idiocy; let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don’t get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. (107b) Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 13.8; trans. FC, 74:172.) Preview.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and such considerateness, the Holy Spirit (108d) directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. 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 of Sacred Scripture.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 13.13; trans. FC, 74:175.) Preview.

Cf. Josef Lössl (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The fourth century, however, did see the emergence of a new tradition of biblical commentary writing, namely the so-called Antiochene tradition, with commentators such as Diodore of Tarsus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus. …they focused on the historical sense of Scripture (ἱστορία), coherence of narrative and argument (ἀκολουθία, consequentia), and on the idea of an inner vision (θεωρία), an ultimate intuitive meaning inherent in the biblical texts. This was in line with their emphasis on the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture…

(Josef Lössl, “Commentaries;” In: The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, eds. Paul M. Blowers, Peter W. Martens, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019], pp. 177, 178.) Preview.

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favour your opinion. But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.

(Jerome of Stridon, Against the Pelagians, 1.14; trans. NPNF2, 6:454.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

Someone may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter…

(Jerome of Stridon, Homilies on the Psalms, Hom. 6 [On Psalm 66 (67)]; trans. FC, 48:45.)

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

…let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.

(Jerome of Stridon, Homilies, Hom. 92 [On Psalm 41(42)—To the Neophytes]; trans. FC, 57:246.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

What those who fear God and have a docile piety are looking for in all these books is the will of God. The first step in this laborious search, as I have said, is to know these books, and even if not yet so as to understand them, all the same by reading them to commit them to memory, or at least not to be totally unfamiliar with them. Next, those things that are put clearly in them, whether precepts about how to live or rules about what to believe, are to be studied with the utmost care and diligence; the greater your intellectual capacity, the more of these you will find. The fact is, after all, that in the passages that are put plainly in scripture is to be found everything that touches upon faith, and good morals, that is to say hope and charity, which we dealt with in the previous book.

Only then, however, after acquiring some familiarity with the actual style of the divine scriptures, should one proceed to try to open up and unravel their obscurities, in such a way that instances from the plainer passages are used to cast light on the more obscure utterances, and the testimony of some undoubted judgments is used to remove uncertainties from those that are more doubtful. In this matter what is of the greatest value is a good memory; if this is wanting, these instructions cannot be of any great assistance.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 2.9.14; trans. WSA, I/11:135. Cf. NPNF1, 2:539.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Magnificent and salutary, therefore, is the way the Holy Spirit has so adjusted the holy scriptures, that they ward off starvation with the clearer passages, while driving away boredom with the obscurer ones. There is almost nothing, in fact, that can be extracted from their obscurities, which cannot be found very plainly said somewhere else.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 2.6.8; trans. WSA, I/11:132. Cf. NPNF1, 2:537.)

Cf. Casey J. Chalk (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Luther’s theory that the clearer verses will interpret the obscure ones had ancient pedigree. The Augustinian monk could find validation for this thesis in none other than the inspiration for his religious order, St. Augustine.

(Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, [Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2023], p. 25.) Preview.

Note: This is not just the view of Augustine, but of the vast majority of Patristic writers.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):

Eran.—We have gone through many and sound arguments, but I was anxious to know the force of the Gospel saying.

Orth.—You stand in need of no interpretation from without. The evangelist himself interprets himself.

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue I.—The Immutable; trans. NPNF2, 3:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Josef Lössl (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Cassiodorus [Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator] (485-585):

Happy indeed is the mind that has stored such a mysterious treasure in the depths of memory [cf. Virgil Georgics 2.490ff.], with God’s help; but much happier the mind that knows the ways of understanding from its energetic investigation. As a result, such a mind vigorously expels human thoughts and is occupied to its salvation with divine utterances. I recall that I have seen many men with powerful memories who, asked about the most obscure passages, have solved the questions put to them by examples drawn only from divine authority, for a matter stated obscurely in one place is set down more clearly in another book. An example of this is the Apostle Paul who to a large extent in the letter written to the Hebrews elucidates the writings of the Old Testament by their fulfilment in the new times.

(M. Aurelii Cassiodori, De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum, Præfatio; PL, 70:1107; trans. Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning On the Soul, Translated Texts for Historians, Volume 42, trans. James W. Halporn, [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2007], Book 1, Preface, §. 2, p. 106.)

5.1. Excursus: Defining the “Analogy of Faith.” Return to Outline.

J. L. Murphy (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The phrase analogy of faith is Biblical: Rom 12.6 speaks of the charism of prophecy, along with such similar gifts as ministering, teaching, exhorting. Prophets exercised one of several “offices” within the primitive church (Acts 11.27; 13.1); guided by the Spirit, they gained insight into the faith or recognized tasks to be undertaken. The Pauline injunction is given that this gift of prophecy must be exercised “according to the proportion [ἀναλογίαν] of faith.” No prophet is to be accepted who proclaims anything opposed to the “one faith” proper to the “one body in Christ.” Such preaching would be out of proportion to, or beyond, the objective truth entrusted to the Christian community.

The analogy of faith . . . became a norm for the early Christian writers. They saw a “proportion” in the manner in which the New Testament complements the Old Testament, and in which each particular truth contributes to the inner unity of the entire Christian revelation. Thus the phrase came to indicate a rule or guide for the exegesis of Scripture…

(J. L. Murphy, “Analogy of Faith;” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Edition: 1: A-Azt, [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2003], p. 380.)

Cf. Romans 12:6:

However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them properly: if prophecy, in proportion to one’s faith [ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως];

(New American Standard Bible.)

Charles Hodge:

If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, “The Father is greater than I,” the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king’s son may say, “My father is greater than I,” although personally his father’s equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], p. 187.)

Cf. The Westminster Confession of Faith:

…when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.9; trans. Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919], p. 605.) See also: ccel.org.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Sola Scriptura in Church History: A Survey of Patristic Literature

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)