PATRISTICS FOR PROTESTANTS

Introduction

Christians of the twenty-first century stand upon a millenia-old foundation of blood and blood-
earnest struggles unlike any other movement in history. Every other idea, philosophy, or religion of
humanity that in its time once captivated the most fervent spirits and wrested into its service the
sharpest intellects of humankind has soon disappeared as suddenly as it came. Not so with Christianity:
from that first day in which, according to his promise, the resurrected Christ poured out his Spirit upon
the twelve apostles, there has been an unbroken succession of men and women devoted to the
unchanging gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with an intensity of commitment unexplainable by any who
have not likewise known the soul-entrancing beauty of the Good News of Christ, the God-Man.
What rivers of blood have poured from the veins of old men and young boys, tender young
women and stooped-over grandmothers, those bold in personality and those timid and shrinking by
nature, and all because, having once devoted themselves to this Savior of men, they could never again
turn aside, no matter what the cost! What brilliant thinkers have poured out all the energies of their
youth and old age alike into their pursuit of the unsearchable depths of the person and work of this
Savior, and never exhausted the subject! What golden-tongued preachers and orators have stirred up
masses of ordinary people to acts and lives of good works and piety unthinkable to those who have not
the same spirit! What fiery polemicists have torn and rent every skulking wolf of heresy, stripped them
bare, knocked out all their lying teeth, for the preservation of the flock of God!
Seeing that these things are so, and knowing but the merest fraction of the earnest and devoted
lives and works of so many generations before us, who in dependence upon the same Spirit of God
have sought the unchanging truth of the Gospel, it is beyond argument that the historic myopia
plaguing much of modern Christianity, particularly among the various denominations and branches of
Protestantism, is utterly at odds with the nature of Christianity – which is, after all, a religion founded
upon nothing but the solid, historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and thereafter built up
through its generations in real history, by real men and women, who really did and thought and
believed those things they considered to be in continuity with the apostolic teachings and traditions, as
recorded in the inspired Word of God.
To ignore or despise the witness of the Church in the first several centuries after the ascension
of Christ, therefore, is foolish at best, and may render one susceptible to damning heresies, at worst.
Today, as with the early Church, there are heresies afoot which do despite to the Gospel of God's free
and sovereign grace, and overturn the only sure foundation of our eternal salvation. But many of these
heresies have already been soundly refuted, some two thousand years ago – and yet, people perish for a
little ignorance of history!
But not only have the church fathers something very relevant and very profound to say to the
ever recurring heresies concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ; they also may have
much more to say to the Roman-Protestant controversies than many Protestants have sometimes been
aware. Rome has a long history of earnest interaction with these fathers – so much so, in fact, that to
many Protestants, the church fathers are simply “Catholic” authors, not in the appropriate sense of the
term (that is, by virtue of the fact that they speak with the approval of and in essential agreement with
the acknowledged, universal Church, as it existed and thought and taught up to their period of history);
but rather, in that common sense of the term which would see them in agreement with the dogma of the
Vatican – that is, in the sense that would view them as “Catholic” in opposition to and mutual
distinction from “Protestant”.
 Of course, this is anachronistic: many of the doctrines of the Vatican did not develop until many
centuries after these church fathers lived and died; and while isolated statements and passages may
evince the seed-form of ideas, practices, or doctrines that have since become the entrenched dogma of
Roman Catholicism, yet the whole tenor and mindset of all their writings may often be utterly opposed
in principle to the ways in which those ideas have since developed. Many early writers, considering an
unrelated subject, have said things unclearly or unwisely which later generations, combating new
heresies, have found necessary to clear up. In such cases, it is never a legitimate method of
argumentation to wrest those miscontextualized snippets into service in a doctrinal battle that had not
yet arisen in their own day.
But the sword cuts in both directions: if it is not allowable to Rome, neither is it allowable to
Protestants to use the fathers in historically insensitive ways. But given the nature of the debate, which
is over concerns that have largely arisen long after the fathers died, this is often a difficult principle to
put into practice. It is much easier to take a phrase or paragraph and exuberantly claim, “See, this father
is saying precisely what we are saying!”. In some cases, perhaps, this may be true; but in most cases, it
is simply not the case, for the fathers in question are addressing altogether different issues. What they
say may and probably does have some bearing on the question; but it is not a direct answer to the
question. Rather than reading them, therefore, as though they were addressing the questions of a
sixteenth-century debate, we ought to read them, first and foremost, on their own terms; and only then
bring those principles which they themselves teach to bear upon a later, related debate. This is much
more difficult a process; but ultimately, it is the only honest and helpful way of proceeding 1.
Before you read a line of this anthology, therefore, and especially if you are a Protestant seeking
ammunition for polemics against Roman theology (not that this is wrong in and of itself), and not just
someone with no firm convictions as yet, or a wavering Protestant who is thinking of turning to Rome
and wondering if the Vatican has a real case for its claim to be the true Catholic Church, in apostolic
succession from the first twelve, I have a caution for you, from Alexander Pope: “A little learning is a
dangerous thing”! This anthology, by its very nature, is prone to being misused. If I did not believe the
potential benefits to outweigh the risks, I would not even publish it; but given the equally dangerous
and much more pervasive problem of historical naivety, I have decided that these risks are less
substantial than the possible help it may afford many persons, who are genuinely struggling with these
issues and who have rightly realized that if, in the first seven centuries of Church history, nobody ever
said the things that Protestants have claimed are central to the gospel, then Protestantism must
necessarily be on very shaky ground. That is just what certain Roman apologists would have you
believe; but any honest and careful searching of the evidence reveals a much different and more
nuanced reality. This compendium of the fathers will give no one a full-orbed understanding of what
their struggles were and why they expressed themselves the way they did; but I think it will prove
beyond cavil that the fathers were not generally opposed to the core Protestant doctrines, but on the
contrary often expressed themselves in ways that, if not directly in support of, are at least very
compatible with those doctrines which a new era and a new controversy drove the Reformers to
formulate in precise terms, just as a millennium before, other controversies drove the fathers to
formulate orthodox trinitarian theology in precise and unequivocal terms.
So much for the introductory vindication of the project's validity and cautions against its
misuse; it now remains only to describe it in short. In essence, this is a categorized and lightly
annotated selection of usually brief quotations from the church fathers on topics which are either of
importance to the debate between Rome and Protestantism, or else enlightening with respect to some
currently popular understanding of the atonement or any other theological topic, which is at odds with
the historic Protestant understanding. The editor and compiler of these quotations believes the historic
Reformed faith to be a basically scriptural and catholic (i.e., in continuity with the teachings of the

1 I am thankful to Dr. Richard Bishop for wisely impressing some of these principles upon me.
universal Church from the days of the apostles to the modern era) system of doctrine; and that, while
many of the fathers may have had weaknesses and blind spots, as theologians of every age are prone to,
which led them in some superficial respects to have some things in common with the modern Roman
Church, yet, in reality, the gist of their beliefs are more alike in spirit to the Reformers than the Roman
apologists. To use the words of the great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, “I know that the old writers
[i.e., the church fathers] sometimes speak rather harshly; and, as I have just said, I do not deny that they
have perhaps erred; but those of their writings that were marred with a few spots here and there become
utterly defiled when they are handled by these men's unwashed hands [i.e., the hands of the medieval
schoolmen, who were instrumental in developing many of the doctrines of the Roman Church in
Calvin's day]”.
In addition to the categorized quotations and annotations, there will also be a very brief
introduction to each of the major headings under consideration, in which it will be attempted to give an
explanation of the history and controversies surrounding the production of the works there excerpted,
in order to preclude, inasmuch as possible, any misuse of the fathers due to a wrongly anachronistic
reading of them. It should be remembered, however, that for a proper evaluation of the doctrine of the
fathers, it is necessary both to be well-acquainted with their history and to read in total entire works and
bodies of works, and not just a few short selections alone. If this list only proves that Rome's
presumption to have the fathers' on their side is not so cut-and-dry as some like to make out, and thus
drives some questioner to a more rigorous examination of early church theology, which goes far
beyond the bounds of this volume, it will have accomplished its intended purpose.
A few final points: one issue upon which the fathers spoke with unanimous consent, and to
which we would do well to listen carefully, is the way in which they approached the Old Testament
scriptures as a thoroughly Christian document, which everywhere and in every way testified of Christ.
The fathers' hermeneutic, although it has sometimes (regrettably) been made the subject of much
disdain, was in reality quite as variegated as Protestant hermeneutics today; and yet, in the various
ways in which they approached the scriptures, they all sought the same end of seeing Christ and his
work in the entire corpus of Old Testament writings – a goal which they had in common both with
Christ and the apostles who wrote the New Testament scriptures. Because I believe there is much we
might learn from them in this respect, I have included a few discussions of hermeneutics, as well as a
few examples of Old Testament exegesis, and a selective list of passages in which the fathers saw either
direct prophecies or types of Christ in the Old Testament.
It being a very loosely valid suggestion that the earlier fathers had a lesser distance from the
apostles, and thus an inroad to addressing and bringing out apostolic concerns without the weight and
complications of many controversies which followed the death of the first twelve, I have considered it
advantageous to distinguish the fathers who lived and wrote before the Nicene Council from those who
lived during and afterwards; which I have done by giving the names only of the Ante-Nicene fathers in
all capital letters; and furthermore, unless some specific reason drove me to do otherwise, I have listed
the selection of quotations in a basically chronological order.
Finally, the quotations provided are usually taken from the series of Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson); the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series (ed. by
Philip Schaff); and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, (ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace). Occasionally, when a quotation I have employed is not included in these series, I have provided
my own translation from the Migne Patrologia Graeca or the Migne Patrologia Latina; these rare
exceptions I have indicated in the footnotes.
I do not need to remind the reader that the issues here touched upon and the outcomes which
their belief or rejection may effect are eternal in duration and vast beyond all expression in their
importance and gravity. Heaven and hell hang in the balance; and what's more, the very glory of the
Most High God, which we with our lips profess to defend, we may be found out on the Day of
Judgment rather to have blasphemed and despised, if we prove to be in error on these, some of the most
weighty of all controversies in history. Let us be driven to a spirit of humility and supplication,
therefore, before we ever delve into these fathers, whom we respect as men of God before us who by
their careful, Spirit-reliant wrestlings may preserve us from some great blasphemy and the eternal
perdition into which it may plunge us. 2

Synopsis of Subjects Considered

I. Authority

• Church Government
• Apostolic Succession
• Supremacy of Rome/the Papacy
• Tradition

II. The Scriptures

• Canonicity
- How/by what authority the canon was determined
- The extent of the canon
• Authority of Scriptures

III. Justification and Sanctification

• Justification by grace alone

• Justification through faith alone
• Imputation of the righteousness/active obedience of Christ (also, infusion of
righteousness/“justification” as “make” vs. “declare” righteous)
• Sanctification

IV. The Atonement

• Penal Substitution
• Other models of the atonement

V. Additions to the Sole Sufficiency of Christ's Work

• Prayers for the dead/purgatory

• Supererogatory works/condign merit; penance/indulgences
• Prayers to the saints; intercession/mediation of the saints
• Marian doctrines
• Veneration of relics/icons

2 This project is only in the very beginning stages of its formulation, and by no means ready for actual publication. In the
meantime, any feedback regarding the nature, scope, or progression of the design; the content of the footnotes; or
suggestions of further useful quotations is welcome.
 VI. The Sacraments

• Their number
• Baptism: its significance, efficacy, mode, and subjects
• The Eucharist: its significance and efficacy

VII. Hermeneutics

• Discussion of hermeneutical principles

• Examples of literal/grammatical hermeneutics
• Scriptures seen as either types or direct prophecies of Christ
• Scriptures used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity

VIII. Asceticism

• Cautions against
• Reasons given in support of

Selections

I. Authority

• Church Government

CLEMENT OF ROME

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so]
from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,
then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their
orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word
of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God
was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their
labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should
afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written
concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their
bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 42) 3

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the
office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-
knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave
instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their
ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent
men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a

3 Here, we see indication that the apostolic office was temporary, and ceased with the establishment of the eldership and
diaconate, which would be permanent; and also, a clear understanding of the latter two offices as the only scriptural
ecclesiastical offices.
humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all,
cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 44) 4

IGNATIUS

“For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop —I mean not of a
mere human, but of a spiritual nature—how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to
him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in
unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of
God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the
whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his
pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not
to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.” (Epistle to the
Ephesians, chap. 5). 5

“For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner
of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may
escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do
nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope,
in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the
ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not
ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all
grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as
Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of
the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the
same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your
bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I
imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But
shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a
condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?” (Epistle to the Trallians,
chap.s 2-3) 6

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not
puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the
4 Further indication that the apostolic office was temporary, and ceased with the establishment of the eldership and
diaconate, which would be permanent; also, definite assent to the active role of the congregation in the appointment of
persons to those offices, which at the same time expresses a high degree of respect for the official authority of the
officers.
5 The mistaken notion of contemporary Evangelicalism, that being a Christian is primarily a matter of the individual,
personal, and experiential is here eloquently argued against.
6 This passage is an indication of the early date at which the original structure of the Church, with Bishops/Elders and
Deacons (see Clement, above), gave way to a tripartite structure of Bishops, Elders (as a distinct office) and deacons.
However, it must be emphasized that Ignatius seems always to consider every local church as having its own bishop,
presbytery, and diaconate, and not a bishop who oversees a group of presbyters, each with his own church. In this
respect, Ignatius seems in a sense to be closer to the common Reformed division between a teaching/preaching elder
(whom he calls the bishop) and ruling elders (whom he calls the presbytery) – with the difference that he accords very
definite primacy to the bishop over the presbytery. While Ignatius accords all of the church officers very high honor, he
also holds them accountable to live in an manner worthy of their high calling, as authorized representatives of Christ and
the apostles; still, he sees them and himself as having an intrinsically lesser authority than the apostles who spoke the
inspired truth.
enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is,
he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his
conscience.” (Epistle to the Trallians, chap. 7)

“For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is
not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes, and detects the secrets [of the
heart]. For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to
the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand
the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got
no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop;
keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ,
even as He is of His Father.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap. 7) 7

• Apostolic Succession (see also, Church Government)

CLEMENT OF ROME

“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel
first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning
himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that
inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then
shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved.” (1 st
Letter to the Corinthians, chap 47) 8

IGNATIUS

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I
am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a
servant.” (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4) 9

IRENAEUS

“Chap. III. 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to
contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in
a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to
demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of
anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which
they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have
delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves . For
they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they
were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men;

7 There are several other similar passages in the epistles of Ignatius, in which he makes his threefold division of the
offices of the Church very clear, and which, for the sake of space, I have decided not to include.
8 An indication that the apostles were of higher authority than the church leaders (their successors) when Clement was
writing (very shortly after the death of the apostles).
9 It is interesting that, in writing to the church at Rome, Ignatius emphasized the apostolic authority of Peter and Paul
above his own authority, with no indication that this apostolic authority existed still in the Roman church – in fact, in
writing such a letter to them, he indicates that his own authority is on an equal plane with theirs, and must therefore be
of an entirely different character from the apostolic authority shared by Peter and Paul.
which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if
they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions
of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-
pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we
do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient,
and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter
and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with
this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
(Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 3)10

• Supremacy of Rome/the Papacy

IGNATIUS

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I
am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a
servant.” (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4) 11

IRENAEUS

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all
the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-
pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we
do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient,
and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter
and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with
this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
(Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 3) 12

10 There follows a listing of the bishops succeeding the apostles both in the Roman and other prominent churches. It is
evident in Irenaeus, as with others, that his ultimate goal in emphasizing the apostolic succession of the bishops in all
true churches of Christ is to argue against those heretics who formed new and unauthorized assemblies, claiming to
know “hidden mysteries,” which the apostles had delivered only to “the perfect,” which go beyond “the faith” once and
for all delivered to the saints. “Not so,” says Irenaeus, “for if the apostles had delivered special knowledge to anyone at
all, it would certainly have been to the leaders of the churches they gave of themselves to establish – and these churches
all preach the same gospel we believe; if you doubt, consider the unbroken succession of bishops teaching the same faith
from the time of the apostles”. Thus, apostolic succession was subservient to the greater point of conformity to apostolic
teaching.
11 It is interesting that, in writing to the church at Rome, Ignatius emphasized the apostolic authority of Peter and Paul
above his own authority, with no indication that this apostolic authority existed still in the Roman church – in fact, in
writing such a letter to them, he indicates that his own authority is on an equal plane with theirs, and must therefore be
of an entirely different character from the apostolic authority shared by Peter and Paul.
12 This indication by Irenaeus that the Roman Church has pre-eminent authority should not be taken out of its context:
Irenaeus is arguing against heretics who claim to have received special knowledge, by secret transmission among the
perfect, from the apostles, who knew deep and hidden truths which they concealed from the common people of the
Church. “Not so,” says Irenaeus, “For if they had revealed their hidden secrets to anyone, it would have been to their
hand-selected leaders of the churches. And what church has a more notable pedigree than the Roman church, which both
FERMILIAN, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (to CYPRIAN)

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from
the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact,
that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he
may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them
alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are
varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure
at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make;
breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and
honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who
in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is
of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church
alone.” (Epistles of Cyprian, 74, sec. 6) 13

“But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of
sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one
Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to
Peter alone, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the
apostles alone, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto
them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.” Therefore the power of remitting sins was
given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops
who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which
we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in
opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishments which
they did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like
death to theirs?
And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who
so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom
the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new
buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who
are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains,
of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the
Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and
deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by
the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession
the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate,
Peter and Paul labored to establish? Look at their gospel, therefore – that has better claim to apostolicity, by greater
historical proof of unbroken succession, than any of these newly-sprung-up heretical churches. Indeed, all the faithful in
the whole world believe this same gospel, so how can a heresy which sprang up so much later overturn that faith, the
historicity of which is well-testified?”. We, too, would ask the same question: “Which of us holds more closely to the
faith preached by the Roman and other apostolic churches, up to Irenaeus's time? Is it the Vatican, with its host of
strange doctrines that appeared much later? Or rather the doctrines of the Reformers, who strove to re-discover the
simplicity of the apostolic faith? That is the question that must ultimately be answered.
13 Not only is the idea of the supremacy of the Roman Bishop (Stephen) here met with disdain, but it is candidly admitted
the Roman Church has sometimes failed to follow apostolic teachings (and how much more so today!), and that the
apostle Peter and Paul by no means speak through or are represented by any one bishop.
but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the
filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make
sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver.
He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what
else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And
now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to
meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar
and sacrifice.” (Epistles of Cyprian, 74, sec.s 16-17) 14

Gregory the Great

“...I beg you, I beseech you, and with all the sweetness in my power demand of you, that your
Fraternity gainsay all who flatter you and offer you this name of error [“Universal Bishop”], nor
foolishly consent to be called by the proud title. For truly I say it weeping, and out of inmost sorrow of
heart attribute it to my sins, that this my brother, who has been constituted in the grade of episcopacy
for the very end of bringing back the souls of others to humility, has up to the present time been
incapable of being brought back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented to
teach himself, even when I implore him.
Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed,
and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless
you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will
become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title:
and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your
brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of all
the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostle Paul,
when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ 1 Corinthians 1:13, regarded with
the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it
were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the
name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain
heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who
is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his
members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this
wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted
to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?
Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit
upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will be like the most High Isaiah 14:13.
For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose
life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And
when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in
comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne
above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of
14 Fermilian's argument, which seems to be consonant with Cyprian's understanding, is that the one true authority of the
keys, first given to Peter, was then given to all the apostles, acting in unity, and is now the possession of all the bishops
who have succeeded them. At any rate, the authority wielded by Stephen, or any bishop for that matter, was by no means
so great that, if he should err at all from the apostolic teachings, which are recorded in their sacred writings, he has
thereby wandered from that only foundation upon which his authority rests. This is a necessary presupposition for
Fermilian's argument; and regardless of whether or not he was right on the matter of baptism, a corollary truth for our
day is that, no bishop, no matter what power he may arrogate to himself, ought to be obeyed or believed if he strays at
all from the teachings of the apostles.
preaching, and glitter in the light of good works? And when your Fraternity despises them, and you
would fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds? All these things when I behold with tears, and tremble at the
hidden judgments of God, my fears are increased, and my heart cannot contain its groans, for that this
most holy man the lord John, of so great abstinence and humility, has, through the seduction of familiar
tongues, broken out into such a pitch of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be
like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace of the likeness granted him,
and because he sought false glory, thereby forfeited true blessedness. Certainly Peter, the first of the
apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,— what were they
but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all
together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under
grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of
them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you
swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who
was truly holy.
Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by
the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable
Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized
upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of
singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren. ” (Book Five, Epistle 18)

“For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church
was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do
you love Me? Feed My sheep [John 21:17]. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as
wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted,
strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:31]. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven [Matthew 16:18].
Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him,
the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal
apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am
compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!...
...If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the head
of all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he
who is called Universal falls. But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the
honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by one.
Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of
Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity,
lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour
due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and another
presumes to seize it for himself though not offered?
He, then, is rather to be bent by the mandate of our most pious Lords, who scorns to render
obedience to canonical injunctions. He is to be coerced, who does wrong to the holy Universal Church,
who swells in heart, who covets rejoicing in a name of singularity, who also puts himself above the
dignity of your Empire through a title peculiar to himself.
Behold, we all suffer offense for this thing. Let then the author of the offense be brought back to
a right way of life; and all quarrels of priests will cease. For I for my part am the servant of all priests,
so long as they live as becomes priests. For whosoever, through the swelling of vain glory, lifts up his
neck against Almighty God and against the statutes of the Fathers, I trust in Almighty God that he will
not bend my neck to himself, not even with swords.” 15 (Book Five, Epistle 20)

“For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of
Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one of
my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is
called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from
the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in
the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this
honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself
perforce.
Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract
from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due...
...For it is because he is near of whom it is written, He is king over all the sons of pride [Job
41:25]— not without sore grief I am compelled to say it— that our brother and fellow bishop John,
despising the Lord's commands, precepts, and rules of Fathers, attempts through elation to be his
forerunner in name...
...For, if this expression is suffered to be allowably used, the honour of all patriarchs is denied:
and while he that is called Universal perishes per chance in his error, no bishop will be found to have
remained in a state of truth.” (Book Five, Epistle 43)

“I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow bishop that, if he
desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to
this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offense ought not to be
engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to
consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case
that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly
pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the
weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or
desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly
puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse
one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he
extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalts himself shall be
humbled [Luke 14:11; 18:14], I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more
inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any
offense by the appellation of a frivolous name.” (Book Seven, Epistle 33)

“For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the
preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make
use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no
more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as
for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour
whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal
Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due
to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are
yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and
wound charity.” (Book Eight, Epistle 30)
15 Although Gregory does here accept the pre-eminence of Peter, he continues his frequent and vociferous argumentations
against anyone at all claiming to be preeminent among the bishops of the Universal Church.
 • Tradition

IRENAEUS

“1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has
received from the apostles and their disciples this faith : [She believes] in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ
Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed
through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the
passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved
Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather
all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus,
our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue
should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send
“spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the
ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the
exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His
commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course],
and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith,
although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves
it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same
heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she
possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the
tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or
hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those
in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.
But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the
preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a
knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may
be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master);
nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition.
For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse
regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” ( Against
Heresies, Book One, chap. 10) 16
3.
“But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures , so that I may come behind in
nothing of what thou hast enjoined.... taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a
very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in
defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and
imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom
also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord

16 This passage, the beautiful and compelling ecumenism of which it would do well for many Protestants to consider,
clearly describes the unity of the church as having its foundations in the message of the apostles, which, as the apostles
themselves so often proclaimed, was none other than the message of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures. Any supposed
unity of the Church, therefore, which fails to admit the truth of the Holy Spirit's written word, falls short of the unity
described by Irenaeus.
declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent
Me.” (Against Heresies, Book Three, Preface) 17

“1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the
Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by
the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith . For it is
unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even
venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead,
[the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them],
were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth,
preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of
heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also
issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching
at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and
interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also,
the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple
of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at
Ephesus in Asia.
2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by
the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he
despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises
the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case
with all heretics. (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap. 1) 18

“1. 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: wherefore also
Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this
world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so
that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion,
at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other
opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being
altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and]
which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition,
saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles,
because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled
the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord
Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again
from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the
hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to
17 In this classic passage, standing at the head of his third book Against Heresies, and in which he provides some of the
earliest and most strenuous arguments for the necessity of apostolic succession, Irenaeus makes it very clear that the
Church must indeed hold fast to apostolic tradition, and indeed be built upon the same foundation, because they alone
had the power of the Gospel, viz., the Truth, to which the inspired Scriptures bear witness. The apostles' authority,
therefore, was only that of the truth, as the Scriptures declare it; and anything not in accord with the truth of the
scriptures can in no wise be called apostolic, or said to have apostolic authority.
18 Apostolic authority, according to Irenaeus, came to full flower in the inspired writings of the apostles, which, according
to the will of God, have since become the only immoveable pillar and ground of the truth for the Church.
this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” ( Against Heresies,
Book Three, chap. 2) 19

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have
recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from
them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles
themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of
the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having
salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient
tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of
Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended
to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the
Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire
those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of
written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as
regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do
please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to
preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would
at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous
address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to
conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among
whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. ” (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap.
4)20

TERTULLIAN

19 Although Irenaeus here speaks of both tradition and scriptures as possessing authority in the Church, it is clear that he
intends every word first and foremost to be tested by the infallible scriptures; and that the Church, carrying down the
same traditions from the apostles which find a permanent and unerring record in the scriptures, is therefore soundly
established against the wild surmisings of the heretics, who, because they deny the written word and prefer instead the
handing down of truth through the voice, open themselves up to countless errors. “Not so,” says Irenaeus, but those who
have succeeded the apostles, because they have a firm written record to guide them, have carried on in vocal succession
an untainted tradition, which may be easily established by weighing it against that written record. Hence, it is beyond
cavil that they who claim to possess the truth by virtue of apostolic succession, if they at all oppose the scriptures, are
not true successors of the apostles at all, but rather of the same spirit as the heretics, who claim to follow the vocal
succession of truth which was spoken at one time by the Lord, and then by the apostles, and then by demiurges and arch-
heretics of all kinds. So they who refuse to admit the pre-eminence of the scriptures, but say that they follow the
traditions and the passing down of truth from one mouth to another, foolishly turning aside from the written record that
God has left and straining to hear God's voice first from one pope then another, soon find themselves far afield from the
traditions left by the apostles, the sure and unchanging testimony of which is in their inspired depositories of sacred
truth, viz., the scriptures.
20 Here, Irenaeus accords primary authority to the written record of the apostles, but admits that barbarians with no access
to the scriptures, if they have held fast to the same spoken apostolic traditions which purely accord with the written
Word, are thereby enabled to stand firm in the truth.
“21They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the
encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a
doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any
discussion of the Scriptures....
“Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on
points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a
discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet)
the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only
one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what
and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become
Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will
likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions....
“...after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding
churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith
to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other
churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every
day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be
able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing
must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so
many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they
all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in
(unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—
privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery....
"From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to
preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed;
for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor
does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach
—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other
words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be
proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring
the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their
epistles22. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees
with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth,
as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from
Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety
to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate
whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the
21 Because this is one of the strongest arguments from the Ante-Nicene fathers against the Reformed doctrine of sola
scriptura, I have quoted selections from it at length. Although something could perhaps be said against its authority on
the score that Tertullian, soon after he wrote this, left the Catholic Church which he so vigorously defends in it, I think it
more profitable to show, even in the midst of his discourse, certain seeds of thought which turn out to be surprisingly
opposed in principle to the contemporary Roman dogma. Footnotes highlighting certain of these places will be found
throughout the text.
22 Tertullian seems to indicate here that the substance of the epistles is identical with the substance of the former teaching,
viva voce; which would mean that the New Testament epistles and oral traditions are not two different and
complementary streams of authoritative doctrine, but rather that the epistles codified and made permanent all the
authoritative oral tradition that had established the first apostolical churches. Hence, the tradition which has ongoing
authority in the Church is nothing but what the epistles have gathered together in themselves. Hence, Tertullian's
previous arguments against arguing with heretics on the basis of the scriptures seems to have more of a force for arguing
the Old Testament scriptures without appeal to the authoritative interpretation they have been given by the apostles,
specifically in the New Testament epistles.
apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold
communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from
theirs. This is our witness of truth....23
“They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by
the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles
certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons ,—in either case exposing Christ
to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity .24
What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the
Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their
attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to
expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those
mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand?...
“Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit 25, seeing that they
cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to
claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what
swaddling-clothes this body was established....
“In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of
heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval
the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized;
so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual
endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were
wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if
not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course
before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found?
that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the
likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have
preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which
foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which
possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though
an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be
accursed.”...26

23 We as Protestants would echo Tertullian here: “Our doctrine is no different from that of the apostolic churches, this is
our rule and testimony of truth”.
24 Tertullian argues forcefully against the idea that the apostles either did not know all necessary doctrine, or did not
commit it at once to all people, so that, at a later time, men had to arise who would tell all people what the apostles had
not given plainly and publicly. In this, it is manifest that Tertullian would overturn anyone who should arise after the
apostolic period, and proclaim any doctrine that was not commonly held by all the Christian churches of the New
Testament era; and this cannot but cut away any grounds for the doctrines which developed later in the Church's history,
which were not only unknown in the early Church, but opposed in spirit to the simplicity of its pure doctrine.
25 Anyone who rejects the clear claims of the scripture, Tertullian says, must not have the Holy Spirit.
26 In this very important passage, Tertullian forcefully argues that whatever doctrine is shown to have existed from the very
beginning of the Church must be true – heresies all arose later, and in accordance with prophecy. Both the Roman
apologists and the Protestants claim that their respective doctrine was believed in the apostolic Church – whoever can
clearly establish their case must therefore win the day. What, then, is that doctrine, believed in the early Church, which
stands as the eternal touchstone of all later doctrinal disputes? Only the gospel of justification by grace alone, which
Paul expounds in Galatians, and curses anyone, whether apostle or angel, who does not subscribe to it. It is significant
that Tertullian quotes Paul's anathema here: to him, if one can substantiate the claim that any church preaches a different
gospel than that expounded in Galatians, it must be a false church. Does Rome teach this Galatians gospel? I think a
very strong case has been made by the sixteenth-century Reformers that in fact it does not.
 “For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of
Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John.... In exactly the same way the other
churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal
places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something
of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But
should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after
comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its
author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things
which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from
the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a
contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who,
although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date,
for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted
as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.... 27
“Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we
introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to
its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are
ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being,
before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. 28” (On the Prescription Against
Heretics, selections from chap.s 15—38) 29.

Rufinus

“This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New
the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, 'All Scripture given by inspiration of God
is profitable for instruction.' And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt
from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to
the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been
handed down to the Churches of Christ. (A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed, sec. 36) 30

Eusebius

“The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition,
amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more
fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the
dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” (History of the Church, Book
3, chap. 39)31
27 The highlighted portion of this paragraph provides a surprisingly clear and powerful argument in support of the
Protestants' conviction that they are indeed the true apostolical Church.
28 This amazing paragraph cuts away any foundation Tertullian might have laid previously for any doctrine opposed to
sola scriptura. At what may be viewed as something of a climax to his treatise, he sums up the support for the
catholicity of the historic, orthodox Church of his day by arguing that they are fully in line with the scriptures, and that,
in fact, the scriptures have indeed begotten them, in a sense. Whoever may rightfully claim, therefore, to be in
accordance with the scriptures may also rightfully claim to be the true, apostolical Church.
29 Clearly, Tertullian's doctrine was in some measure antagonistic to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, but his
reasoning is different in certain key respects from that of the Vatican, as the previous footnotes point out.
30 Rufinus accords to the scriptures themselves the authority of God the Holy Spirit, but to the traditions of the fathers only
the authority to discover which books, because they have been inspired , carry all the weight of divine authority (which
he sees as none but the books of the Protestant canon).
31 Note what little respect Eusebius has for unwritten tradition which cannot be certainly substantiated, even from so early
and orthodox a father as Papias.
 II. The Scriptures

• Canonicity

- How/by what authority the canon was determined

Athanasius

“ But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these
not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us,
and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of
Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the
Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read...”
(From Letter XXXIX [For 367]) 32

Rufinus

“This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New
the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, “All Scripture given by inspiration of God
is profitable for instruction.” And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have
learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which,
according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and
have been handed down to the Churches of Christ. (A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed, sec. 36) 33

- The extent of the canon

Athanasius

“In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern
of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce
into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired
Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having
been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books
included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has
fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in
purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is
handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names
being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then

32 This comes from a context in which Athanasius accords to the divine scriptures alone, by which he explicitly lists only
the books of the Protestant canon all authority, sufficient for all matters of salvation; but to the books approved by the
fathers, he gives only his consent that they may be profitably read, but maintains a fundamental distinction between
them and the canonical books. Hence, the fact of divine inspiration is of vastly greater weight to Athanasius than the
approval of the fathers by tradition.
33 Rufinus accords to the scriptures themselves the authority of God the Holy Spirit, but to the traditions of the fathers only
the authority to discover which books, because they have been inspired , carry all the weight of divine authority (which
are none but the books of the Protestant canon).
Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after
these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third
and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book.
Again Ezra, the first and second [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is
the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the
Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch,
Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far
constitutes the Old Testament.
Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four
Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and
Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of
Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans;
then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians;
then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to
Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
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.
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides
these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly
join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the
Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the
Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being
[merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of
heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to
them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.”
(From Letter XXXIX [For 367]) 34

Augustine

“And this certain Scripture which is called 'Of Maccabees,' the Jews do not consider as 'the Law and
the Prophets and the Psalms,' of which the Lord bears testimony as his own testimonies, saying, 'It is
necessary to be fulfilled all the things that are written of me in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms
(Luke 24:44); but they are received by the Church not without profit, if they are read or heard soberly.”
(Against Gaudentius I, chap. 31, sec. 38) 35

Jerome

34 With the possible exception of Baruch (if he is not referring to the scribal work of Baruch accorded a place in the
prophecies of Jeremiah), Athanasius clearly accords divine authority only to the books of the Protestant canon, and
explicitly disavows all others, including the books which we today know as Apocryphal, including in Roman Catholic
bibles.
35 My own translation [NP]. Here, Augustine seems to draw a distinction of degree in the profitableness of the scriptures
accepted as canonical by the Jews and the so-called “Apocrypha,” which the Church has received and which may
therefore be read not without profit; but in any event, he affirms that the Hebrew scriptures received by the Jews are the
same as those received by the Lord Jesus himself as those which bear testimony to him, implicitly denying that the Lord
Jesus ever considered the Apocrypha to be “his own testimonies”.
“There are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, as is also witnessed by the language of the Syrians
and Chaldeans, which is for the most part similar to the Hebrew; for these twenty-two elements also
have the same sound, but different characters. The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the
same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (or "endings" apicibus). And Ezra, the
scribe and doctor of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple under
Zerubbabel, is certain to have found (or "invented" repperisse) other letters, which we now use, when
up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and the Hebrews were the same. In the book of
Numbers this same total is also mystically shown by the census of the Levites and the priests. And we
find in certain Greek scrolls to this day the four-lettered Name of God written in the ancient letters. But
also the thirty-sixth Psalm, and the one hundred tenth, and the one hundred eleventh, and the one
hundred eighteenth, and the one hundred forty-fourth, although written in different meter, are
nevertheless woven with an alphabet of the same number. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his
prayer, also at the end of the Proverbs of Solomon from that place in which he says "Who can find a
strong woman?" are counted the same alphabet or sections. Furthermore, five of the letters among them
are double: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade. For they write with these one way at the beginning and in the
middle of words, another at the end. From which also five are considered double books by most:
Samuel, Malachim, Dabreiamin, Ezra, Jeremiah with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentantion. Therefore, just
as there are twenty-two elements, by which we write in Hebrew all that we say, and the human voice is
understood by their beginnings (or "parts" initiis), thus twenty-two scrolls are counted, by which letters
and writings a just man is instructed in the doctrine of God, as though in tender infancy and still
nursing.
The first book is called among them Bresith, which we call Genesis; the second, Hellesmoth,
which is named Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth Vaiedabber, which we call
Numbers; the fifth, Addebarim, which is designated Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses,
which they appropropriately call Thorat, that is, the Law.
The second order is made of the Prophets, and begins with Jesus son of Nave, which is called
among them Joshua benNum. Then they append Sopthim, that is the book of Judges; and they attach
Ruth to the same, because the history narrated happened in the days of the Judges. Samuel follows
third, which we call First and Second Kingdoms. Fourth is Malachim, that is Kings, which book
contains Third and Fourth Kingdoms; and it is much better to say Malachim, that is Kings, rather than
Malachoth, that is Kingdoms, for it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but only that of
the Israelite people which contains twelve tribes. Fifth is Isaiah, sixth Jeremiah, seventh Ezekiel, eighth
the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called Thareasra among them.
The third order holds the Hagiographa, and begins with Job, the first book, the second by
David, which is also one book of Psalms comprising five sections. The third is Solomon, having three
books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, and Ecclesiastes, that is Accoeleth, and
The Song of Songs, which they denote with the title Sirassirim. Sixth is Daniel, seventh Dabreiamin,
that is Words of the Days, which we may call more clearly a chronicle (Gk here: χρονικον) of all of
Divine history, which book is written among us as First and Second Paralipomenon; eighth is Ezra,
which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books; ninth is Esther.
And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses,
eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the
Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-
four books of the Old Law, which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four
elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with
unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."
This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which
we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside
among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of
Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon . I have found the
First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their
styles.” (from the prologue to his translation of the books of the Kings) 36

“I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book
written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude
from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled
Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews
rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is
better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of
bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to
Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and
whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin
words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned
what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.” (Prologue to his translation of Tobit) 37

Rufinus

“Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The
Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two;
the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra
and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David,
each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These
comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles,
written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother
of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which
the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of
our faith.
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical”
but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom,
called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title
Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same
class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New
Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called
The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not
appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named “Apocrypha.” These
they would not have read in the Churches.
These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have
thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first

36 This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, and released by him into the
public domain.
37 This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, and released by him into the
public domain. Notice in what high regard Jerome holds only those books which were acknowledged to be
divine in the Hebrew canon, even though he somewhat reluctantly accedes to the bishop's request for the
translation of this, as other, apocryphal books.
elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God
their draughts must be taken. (A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed, sec. 37-38)

• Authority of Scriptures

IGNATIUS

“When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel;
on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus
Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is
by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be
justified.” 38

BARNABAS

“...as it is written, 'Many are called, but few are chosen.'” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 4) 39

IRENAEUS

“But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures , so that I may come behind in
nothing of what thou hast enjoined.... taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a
very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in
defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and
imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom
also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord
declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent
Me.” (Against Heresies, Book Three, Preface) 40

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have
recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from
them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles
themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of
the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having
salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient
tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of
Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended
to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the

38 To Ignatius, the scriptures possess ultimate authority, and the touchstone by which one's interpretation of the scripture
must be tested is, whether or not it is in accordance with the cross, death and resurrection of Christ.
39 An interesting quote, in that it shows how early the New Testament writings were referred to with the well-known
formula for introducing inspired scriptures, viz., “It is written...”
40 For similar passages, see above, Authority: Tradition. In this classic passage, standing at the head of his third book
Against Heresies, and in which he provides some of the earliest and most strenuous arguments for the necessity of
apostolic succession, Irenaeus makes it very clear that the Church must indeed hold fast to apostolic tradition, and
indeed be built upon the same foundation, because they alone had the power of the Gospel, viz., the Truth, to which the
inspired Scriptures bear witness. The apostles' authority, therefore, was only that of the truth, as the Scriptures declare it;
and anything not in accord with the truth of the scriptures can in no wise be called apostolic, or said to have apostolic
authority.
Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire
those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of
written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as
regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do
please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to
preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would
at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous
address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to
conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among
whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. ” (Against Heresies, Book Three, chap.
4)41

Athanasius

“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.” (From Letter XXXIX [For 367]) 42

III. Justification and Sanctification

• Justification by grace alone (see also, “Superergoatory Works/Condign Merit”)

IGNATIUS

“From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being
bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show
themselves all the worse. But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of Christ];
“yet am I not thereby justified.” (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 5) 43

“Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works,
we should cease to be” (Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. 10).

BARNABAS

“Therefore He hath circumcised our ears, that we might hear His word and believe...” (Epistle of
Barnabas, chap. 9) 44
41 Here, Irenaeus accords primary authority to the written record of the apostles, but admits that barbarians with no access
to the scriptures, if they have held fast to the same spoken apostolic traditions which purely accord with the written
Word, are thereby enabled to stand firm in the truth.
42 This is from a letter in which Athanasius explicitly accepts as divinely-inspired only the books of the Protestant canon,
and makes a fundamental distinction between them and the books which we today know of as the Apocrypha. He is
clear here that no other book may be added to this list, as the canonical scriptures alone are divinely authoritative, and
contain within themselves all that is necessary for salvation.
43 Similarly to Paul in Philippians 3, when listing his accomplishments only to disavow them for the righteousness of
Christ, Ignatius here gives a very weighty list of good works that he has done, being on the way to a glorious
martyrdom; but he explicitly denies to those good works any value for his justification.
44 An early testimony against the Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian/Arminian doctrines that faith comes from anything but the
sovereign grace of God.
Augustine

“...but he says, “Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath
made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled
to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness ( our righteousness being not our
own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him ); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in
Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin
was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness
of sin...” (Enchiridion, chap. 41)45

John Cassian

“So then as they know by experience that through the hindrance of the burden of the flesh they cannot
by human strength reach the desired end, nor be united according to their heart’s desire with that chief
and highest good, but that they are led away from the vision of it captive to worldly things, they betake
themselves to the grace of God, 'Who justifieth the ungodly,' and cry out with the Apostle: O wretched
man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through our Lord
Jesus Christ.'” (Third Conference of Abbot Theonas, chap. 10).

• Justification through faith alone

CLEMENT OF ROME

“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own
works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too,
being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or
understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith
through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and
ever. Amen.
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the
practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten
with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all
Himself rejoices in His works.” (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap.s 32-33) 46

“Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we
may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by
faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do
the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting
away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit,
whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition.” ( 1 st
Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 35) 47

45 Augustine here teaches unequivocally that our justification is not due to any righteousness that God works in us, but it is
rather on the basis of a righteousness wholly outside of us, that is, God's own righteousness, that we are reconciled to
God.
46 This is as clear an affirmation of justification by grace alone through faith alone, with works following as as befitting the
antecedent reality of gospel justification, as could be expressed by the most ardent of the Reformers!
47 Faith precedes and empowers perseverance
AD DIOGNETUM (POLYCARP?)

“If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the
Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered
subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He
imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom
He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to
those who have loved Him. And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think
you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you
will be an imitator of His kindness.” (chap. 10) 48

BARNABAS

“For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?” (Epistle of
Barnabas, chap. 5) 49

“And Moses spake unto them, saying, “When any one of you is bitten, let him come to the serpent
placed on the pole; and let him hope and believe, that even though dead, it is able to give him life, and
immediately he shall be restored.” And they did so. Thou hast in this also [an indication of] the glory of
Jesus; for in Him and to Him are all things.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 12)

“What, then, says He to Abraham? “Because thou hast believed, it is imputed to thee for righteousness:
behold, I have made thee the father of those nations who believe in the Lord while in [a state of]
uncircumcision.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 13) 50

“Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a
temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing
such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the
Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having
received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new
creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How?
His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He
himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the
doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible
temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and
speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself
having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (Epistle of Barnabas,
chap. 16)

Leo the Great

“True faith also, that justifies the transgressors and makes them just, is drawn to Him who shared their
human natures and wins salvation in Him, in whom alone man finds himself not guilty ; and thus is

48 This remarkable passage teaches that faith apprehends the knowledge of God, promises a Kingdom in Heaven, and so
fills its possessors with joy that they will imitate the love and kindness of God which was shown to them.
49 Men are saved not by works, but only by looking upon Christ, as the Israelites looked upon the serpent in the wilderness.
50 Because of its importance for the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I here include the original footnote from ANF,
vol. One, verbatim: 'Cod. Sin. has, “when alone believing,” and is followed by Hilgenfeld to this effect: “What, then,
says He to Abraham, when, alone believing, he was placed in righteousness? Behold,” etc.'
free to glory in the power of Him who in the humiliation of our flesh engaged in conflict with the
haughty foe, and shared His victory with those in whose body He had triumphed.” (Letter 124, sec. 4;
“To the Monks of Palestine”) 51

John of Damascus

“For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith . For the true faith is
attested by works....It does not behove us to delay baptism when the faith of those coming forward is
testified to by their works.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book Four, chap. 9) 52

• Imputation of the righteousness/active obedience of Christ (also, infusion of

righteousness/“justification” as “make” vs. “declare” righteous)

AD DIOGNETUM (POLYCARP?)

“that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of
One should justify many transgressors!” (chap. 9) 53

Augustine

“...but he says, “Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath
made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled
to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness ( our righteousness being not our
own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him ); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in
Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin
was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness
of sin...” (Enchiridion, chap. 41)54

Leo the Great

“True faith also, that justifies the transgressors and makes them just, is drawn to Him who shared their
human natures and wins salvation in Him, in whom alone man finds himself not guilty ” (Letter 124,
sec. 4; “To the Monks of Palestine”) 55

51 Leo sees true faith both as the means by which transgressors are justified by uniting them with Christ (“justifies the
transgressors...in [Christ] alone man finds himself not guilty”); and the means by which they are sanctified
(“[justifies]...and makes them just...”).
52 Clearly, this is fully in continuity with the later Reformed understanding of faith and works – “we are justified by faith
alone, but not a faith that is alone” – faith is the root, the genuineness of which is attested to by the fruit of good works.
53 The doctrine of justification by an alien, imputed righteousness!
54 Although he is not always so clear on the point, Augustine here teaches unequivocally that our justification is not due to
any righteousness that God works in us, but it is rather on the basis of a righteousness wholly outside of us, that is, God's
own righteousness, that we are reconciled to God; this demands the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as the
means by which we become righteousness . Any time, therefore, that Augustine seems to imply the nature of
“justification” as an infusion of righteousness, or to understand the meaning of the word (due to the regrettable
translation in the Vulgate of “ δικαιοω” as “iustificare”) as “make righteous” rather than “declare righteous” needs to be
set against this passage, in which he affirms that the way in which we are “made righteous” is by the principle of an
entirely alien righteousness, which we, being “in Him,” may count our own.
55 Leo views “justifying transgressors” as something different from “making” them just – believers are declared righteous
(justification) and made righteous (sanctification) by faith alone. Lat.: “... justificans impios, et creans justos ...” – hence,
“iustificare” must mean something different to Leo than to “make righteous” (“ creare iustos”).
 • Sanctification

CLEMENT OF ROME

“Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself,
what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?” (1 st Letter to the
Corinthians, chap. 16) 56

IGNATIUS

“For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. Now these two, being inseparably connected together,
are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly]
making a profession of faith sinneth; nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made
manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their
conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the
power of faith to the end.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 14). 57

BARNABAS

“For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified
through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap.
5)58

Leo the Great

“True faith also, that justifies the transgressors and makes them just, is drawn to Him who shared their
human natures and wins salvation in Him, in whom alone man finds himself not guilty; and thus is free
to glory in the power of Him who in the humiliation of our flesh engaged in conflict with the haughty
foe, and shared His victory with those in whose body He had triumphed.” (Letter 124, sec. 4; “To the
Monks of Palestine”) 59

IV. The Atonement

• Penal Substitution

CLEMENT OF ROME

“On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God;
His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.” (1 st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 49)

AD DIOGNETUM (POLYCARP?)

56 In calling the demand for holiness a “yoke of grace,” Clement attributes all good works of the believer to the operation
of grace, and implicitly denies any condign merit or supererogatory works.
57 The nature of good works as the fruit of faith and the necessity of perseverance, both solidly Reformed teachings, are
clearly presented here by Ignatius.
58 Both sanctification and the remission of sins are by the sprinkled blood and substitutionary death of Christ.
59 Leo sees true faith both as the means by which transgressors are justified by uniting them with Christ (“justifies the
transgressors...in [Christ] alone man finds himself not guilty”); and the means by which they are sanctified
(“[justifies]...and makes them just...”).
“But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward,
punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before
appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding
regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us,
but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our
iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One
for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the
immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His
righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified,
than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all
expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the
righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” (chap. 9) 60

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He
alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone,
on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace
without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due.
Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was
willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” ( Against Two Letters of the Pelagians , Book 4, chap.
7)

Hilary of Poitiers

“He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He
might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He
might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. ” (On
the Trinity, Book One, chap. 13)

“It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the
curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a
voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.”
(Homily on Psalm LIII [LIV], chap. 13)

Gregory Nazianzen

“But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and
sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so
He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body...But as I said, He was in His own
Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of
Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our
transgressions...” (Fourth Theological Oration, sec. V)

60 What clearer or more beautiful description of penal substitution could be imagined than this?
John of Damascus

“And it was in this way that our Lord appropriated both our curse and our desertion, and such other
things as are not natural: not that He Himself was or became such, but that He took upon Himself our
personality and ranked Himself as one of us. Such is the meaning in which this phrase is to be taken:
Being made a curse for our sakes” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book Three, chap. 25)

“Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin ( for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of
the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth) He was not subject to death, since death came
into the world through sin. He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He
makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet
that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus be delivered from the condemnation.
God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant.” ( Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith, Book Three, chap. 27) 61

• Other models of the atonement

IRENAEUS

“For, in what way could we be partakers of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him
through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had
entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all
communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in
the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin; for,
by their showing, death has not been vanquished, which “reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” But the law coming, which was given
by Moses, and testifying of sin that it is a sinner, did truly take away his (death’s) kingdom, showing
that he was no king, but a robber; and it revealed him as a murderer. It laid, however, a weighty burden
upon man, who had sin in himself, showing that he was liable to death. For as the law was spiritual, it
merely made sin to stand out in relief, but did not destroy it. For sin had no dominion over the spirit,
but over man. For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of
death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had
been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and
man should go forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally
moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by
the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and
receive salvation. Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: “God, true are His
works.” But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But
what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that
He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.”
(Against Heresies, Book Three, Chapter 18, sec. 6) 62

61 Here we find not just an explanation of the atonement as fundamentally involving penal substitution, but also a strong
denunciation of the “ransom paid to Satan” model.
62 It is true that the recapitulation of the whole life cycle of humankind was part of Irenaeus's teaching on the atonement, as
this quote makes clear; but against those who would say that Irenaeus taught a “recapitulation” model over against a
“penal substitutionary” model of the atonement err greatly: just as the first, failed life cycle of the first Adam resulted in
the constitution of the whole human race as sinful and deserving of death; so the recapitulation of that life cycle, in the
truly human Christ, justified all those who had been condemned in Adam. Recapitulation is just the necessary means by
LACTANTIUS

“It was necessary...that... He might be delivered into the hands of wicked men, and might undergo
death, that, having subdued this also by His might, He might rise again, and bring to man, whose nature
He had put on and represented, the hope of overcoming death, and might admit him to the rewards of
immortality” (Divine Institutes, Book Four, chap. 10) 63

“And though He knew that this would come to pass, and repeatedly said that He must suffer and be
put to death for the salvation of many, nevertheless He withdrew Himself with His disciples, not that
He might avoid that which it was necessary for Him to undergo and endure, but that He might show
what ought to take place in every persecution, that no one should appear to have fallen into it through
his own fault...” (Divine Institutes, Book Four, chap. 18) 64

“...Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom...” (Divine
Institutes, Book Four, chap. 20) 65

John of Damascus

“For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we
should thus be delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have
been offered to the tyrant.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book Three, chap. 27) 66

V. Additions to the Sole Sufficiency of Christ's Work

• Prayers for the dead/Purgatory

Augustine

“It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers
shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less
devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.” ( Enchiridion, chap. 69)67

• Supererogatory works/condign merit; penance/indulgences

which penal substitution, together with its corollary doctrine, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, actually
came into being.
63 Although Lactantius' emphasis when discussing the atonement is usually one of moral influence and example of
righteousness, there are other discernible themes in his writings, such as this “Christus Victor” idea of Christ's
overpowering the tyranny of death by his descent into the grave, and arising to bestow benefits upon men.
64 Although Lactantius' common emphasis on Christ's example of righteousness may be seen here, it is evidently not in
contradistinction to the idea of penal substitution, as may be seen by his use of the phrase highlighted above, as well as
his quotation in an earlier place (chap. 16) of Isaiah 53, to the effect that Christ would bear our sins and endure pain for
us. For another example, see below.
65 Definite proof that, in spite of other more common emphases, Lactantius was not hostile to a penal substitutionary
understanding of the atonement.
66 Clear denunciation of the “ransom paid to Satan” model of the atonement.
67 Although not directly opposed to the doctrine of Purgatory, Augustine at least expresses significant doubt as to its
validity, which indicates that the doctrine had no clear consensus among the earlier fathers, nor any real substantiation in
the scriptures, Augustine being so well-studied in both respects as to have definite knowledge of such arguments, had
they been in existence.
CLEMENT OF ROME

“Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself,
what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?” (1 st Letter to the
Corinthians, chap. 16) 68

THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP

“For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the
governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him that was crucified, they
begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also
watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for
us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole
world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of
God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account
of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made
companions and fellow-disciples!”69

IGNATIUS

“Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works,
we should cease to be” (Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. 10).

LACTANTIUS

“For to the wicked, who still rage against the righteous in other parts of the world, the Omnipotent will
also repay the reward of their wickedness with a severity proportioned to its tardiness; for as He is a
most indulgent Father towards the godly, so is He a most upright Judge against the ungodly.” (Divine
Institutes, Book One, chap. 1) 70

Augustine

“Lastly, although brethren die for brethren, yet no martyr’s blood is ever shed for the remission of the
sins of brethren, as was the case in what He did for us; and in this respect He bestowed not on us aught
for imitation, but something for congratulation. In as far, then, as the martyrs have shed their blood for
the brethren, so far have they exhibited such tokens of love as they themselves perceived at the table of
the Lord. (One might imitate Him in dying, but no one could, in redeeming.) In all else, then, that I
have said, although it is out of my power to mention everything, the martyr of Christ is far inferior to
Christ Himself. But if any one shall set himself in comparison, I say, not with the power, but with the
innocence of Christ, and (I would not say) in thinking that he is healing the sins of others, but at least
that he has no sins of his own, even so far is his avidity overstepping the requirements of the method of
salvation...For in asserting his own sinlessness, he cannot prove, but only pretend, that he is righteous.

68 In calling the demand for holiness a “yoke of grace,” Clement attributes all good works of the believer to the operation
of grace, and implicitly denies any condign merit or supererogatory works.
69 Only the Christ suffered for the salvation of all sinners, both the martyrs such as Polycarp and us, who are their
companions and fellow-disciples.
70 When God rewards according to merit, he is dealing as the just Judge of the wicked; his dealings with the righteous are
not as a just Judge, but as a lenient Father.
And so it is said, “For such have a deceiving life.” There is only One who could at once have human
flesh and be free from sin. Appropriately are we commanded that which follows; and such a word and
proverb is well adapted to human weakness, when it is said, “Lay not thyself out, seeing thou art poor,
against him that is rich.” For the rich man is Christ, who was never obnoxious to punishment either
through hereditary or personal debt and is righteous Himself, and justifies others. Lay not thyself out
against Him, thou who art so poor, that thou art manifestly to the eyes of all the daily beggar that thou
art in thy prayer for the remission of sins.” ( On the Gospel of Saint John, Tractate 84, sec. 2) 71

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He
alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone,
on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace
without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due.
Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was
willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” ( Against Two Letters of the Pelagians , Book 4, chap.
7)72

Leo the Great

“For although in the sight of the Lord the death of many of His saints has been precious, yet no
innocent’s death was the propitiation of the world. The righteous have received, not given, crowns:
and from the endurance of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not the gift of justification.
For their deaths affected themselves alone, and no one has paid off another’s debt by his own death:
one alone among the sons of men, our Lord Jesus Christ, stands out as One in whom all are crucified,
all dead, all buried, all raised again.” (Letter 124, sec. 4; “To the Monks of Palestine”)

• Prayers to the saints; intercession/mediation of the saints

MARTYRDOM OF IGNATIUS

“...it came to pass, on our falling into a brief slumber, that some of us saw the blessed Ignatius suddenly
standing by us and embracing us, while others beheld him again praying for us, and others still saw him
dropping with sweat, as if he had just come from his great labour, and standing by the Lord.” (chap.
7)73

LACTANTIUS
71 Here, Augustine thoroughly condemns, both in a positive and negative sense, that monstrous idea of supererogatory
works, or a treasury of merits, by which the saints are either able to help atone for sins by their own bloody deaths,
which can never be redemptive; or to provide righteousness, merit, or superfluous works to help any others, since Christ
alone is rich in righteousness, and able to justify others.
72 Augustine taught the exclusive mediation, satisfaction, merit, etc., of Christ alone.
73 In the context, the grief-stricken Christians are tempted to doubt that Ignatius had triumphed even through martyrdom,
but had rather been defeated by being thrown to the wild beasts; but receiving visions of Ignatius embracing them and
praying for them, with the sweat of his labors still upon him, they are encouraged to rejoice. The import of the vision is
not to encourage the Christians that, even after his death, Ignatius is interceding for them, but rather that the labors of
martyrdom could not destroy the works that he had done on the earth, when he was faithful to love and pray for all the
saints. These works in which he sweated followed after him, and made him joyful in the Lord still after his death. And
yet, it is easy to see how, in the coming generations, this assurance could slowly grow to a trust in the ongoing
intercession/mediation of the saints (about which, see Lactantius, below). At any rate, the exuberance of a few grief-
stricken and sleep-deprived mourners should not be wrested unnaturally to the support of a doctrine which the scriptures
and the early fathers spoke against, viz., prayers to the dead saints in the hopes of their favors and intercessions.
“But if it appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have shown, it is manifest that
those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean
spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who,
rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated
every sacred law” (Divine Institutes, Book Two, chap. 18).

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He
alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone,
on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace
without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due.
Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was
willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” ( Against Two Letters of the Pelagians , Book 4, chap.
7)74

• Marian doctrines

IRENAEUS

“1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of
that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience
which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself
when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that
virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced,
through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man.
For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had
transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she
should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the
latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness
(advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a
virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by
virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man ( protoplasti) receives
amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the
harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.”
(Against Heresies, Book Five, chap. 19). 75

• Veneration of relics/icons, etc.

74 Augustine taught the exclusive mediation, satisfaction, merit, etc., of Christ alone.
75 This interesting passage, while according an appropriate degree of respect to the virgin whom God chose for a unique
and exceedingly precious ministry in redemptive history, gives no indication of any higher honor to her than to all those
men whom God, in his paradoxical ways, has used to bring about the opposite of that which the Serpent had tried, and
initially succeeded, in doing. Thus, Haman built a gallows to destroy God's people and was hanged on it himself; even as
the Serpent built a cross to destroy God's Son with, and by it received his death-wound. In a similar way, which well
accords with Irenaeus's peculiar emphasis on recapitulation, when the Serpent sought to destroy the human race by
enticing a virgin to disobedience, God in his wisdom saw fit to save it through the obedience of a virgin; not, however,
as though she were immaculate in every respect, but only in that she obeyed God in the matter through which he was
pleased to bring the Savior into the world.
THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP

“For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the
governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him that was crucified, they
begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also
watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for
us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole
world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of
God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account
of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made
companions and fellow-disciples!”76

THE MARTYRDOM OF IGNATIUS

“...he was thus cast to the wild beasts close beside the temple, that so by them the desire of the holy
martyr Ignatius should be fulfilled, according to that which is written, “The desire of the righteous is
acceptable [to God],” to the effect that he might not be troublesome to any of the brethren by the
gathering of his remains, even as he had in his Epistle expressed a wish beforehand that so his end
might be. For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch
and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the
martyr.” (chap. 6) 77

LACTANTIUS

“For the plan of making likenesses was invented by men for this reason, that it might be possible to
retain the memory of those who had either been removed by death or separated by absence. In which of
these classes, then, shall we reckon the gods? If among the dead, who is so foolish as to worship them?
If among the absent, then they are not to be worshipped, if they neither see our actions nor hear our
prayers. But if the gods cannot be absent,—for, since they are divine, they see and hear all things, in
whatever part of the universe they are,—it follows that images are superfluous, since the gods are
present everywhere, and it is sufficient to invoke with prayer the names of those who hear us. But if
they are present, they cannot fail to be at hand at their own images. It is entirely so, as the people
imagine, that the spirits of the dead wander about the tombs and relics of their bodies. But after that the
deity has begun to be near, there is no longer need of his statue.” ( Divine Institutes, Book Two, chap.
2)78

“Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists
of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are

76 The idea of venerating the relics of Polycarp, as though they could convey grace or had any atoning efficacy, is met with
disdain by his fellow-Christians.
77 Although the Christians who composed this account implicitly agree with Ignatius' concern that it would be troublesome
to have to deal with his remains (thus denying any intrinsic worth or merit in them by regarding them merely as
demanding necessary, troublesome labor), they nevertheless treated of the remaining bones with much respect and
accorded them a very great value because of the holiness of the beloved martyr. This doubtless gives an indication of the
slow process by which, eventually, the relics of the martyrs came to be held in superstitious awe by Christians of a later
generation.
78 Although Lactantius is specifically arguing against pagan idol worship his reasoning is equally valid against the use of
statues or icons in Christian worship. If the saints are absent, it is foolish to seek communion with them through statues
or icons; if they are present, then the statues or icons are worthless.
without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth.... But if
all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion
in images, but a mimicry of religion. That which is true is therefore to be preferred to all things which
are false; earthly things are to be trampled upon, that we may obtain heavenly things” ( Divine
Institutes, Book Two, chap. 19)

“Or if they would contemplate that heavenly light which we call the sun, they will at once perceive
how God has no need of their candles, who has Himself given so clear and bright a light for the use of
man...Is that man, therefore, to be thought in his senses, who presents the light of candles and torches
as an offering to Him who is the Author and Giver of light? The light which He requires from us is of
another kind, and that indeed not accompanied with smoke, but (as the poet says) clear and bright; I
mean the light of the mind, on account of which we are called by the poets photes, which light no one
can exhibit unless he has known God. But their gods, because they are of the earth, stand in need of
lights, that they may not be in darkness; and their worshippers, because they have no taste for anything
heavenly, are recalled to the earth even by the religious rites to which they are devoted.” (Divine
Institutes, Book Six, chap. 2) 79

VI. The Sacraments

• Their number
• Baptism: its significance, efficacy, mode, and subjects

BARNABAS

“This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing
fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. “And whosoever shall eat of
these shall live for ever,” This meaneth: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear thee speaking, and believe,
shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 11) 80

LACTANTIUS

“He was baptized by the prophet John in the river Jordan, that He might wash away in the spiritual
laver not His own sins, for it is evident that He had none, but those of the flesh, which He bare; that as
He saved the Jews by undergoing circumcision, so He might save the Gentiles also by baptism—that is,
by the pouring forth of the purifying dew.” ( Divine Institutes, Book Four, chap. 15) 81

• The Eucharist: its significance and efficacy

IGNATIUS

“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the
heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became
afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which
is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (Epistle to the Romans, chap. 7)

79 Although Lactantius is arguing against pagan worship specifically, it is still clear what his thoughts are on the ritual use
of lights in worship.
80 Baptism is seen as a means of grace; but faith alone, which baptism tends to confirm and strengthen, gives eternal life.
81 Interesting passage in which the efficacy of baptism to wash away sins is tied to Christ's own actions in our place.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the
flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness,
raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their
disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.” (Epistle to
the Smyrnaeans, chap. 7). 82

VII. Hermeneutics

• Discussion of hermeneutical principles

IGNATIUS

“And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope
in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ,
being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and
being reckoned along with [us] in the Gospel of the common hope” (Epistle to the Philadelphians,
chap. 5).

“When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel;
on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus
Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is
by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified”
(Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap. 8). 83

“But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the
appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced
Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality” (Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap. 9).

BARNABAS

“The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it
behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the
dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfil the promise made unto the fathers,
and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has
raised mankind, will also judge them.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 5) 84

JUSTIN MARTYR

“Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and
afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the

82 While too generic to provide any clue regarding the real presence (spiritual or bodily) of Christ in the elements, this
quotation and the previous are at least sufficiently clear in their protrayal of the communication of grace in the Eucharist
to put Ignatius at odds with the pure memorialism of the Anabaptist/Zwinglian traditions.
83 To Ignatius, the scriptures possess ultimate authority, and the touchstone by which one's interpretation of the scripture
must be tested is, whether or not it is in accordance with the cross, death and resurrection of Christ.
84 Although Barnabas's hermeneutic is often wildly speculative, it is notable that the whole goal of his interpretation, viz.,
understanding what the OT prophets said of Christ and his work on the cross, is the same as all the other fathers, and
indeed, the NT authors themselves.
prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him
ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and
went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles.” ( First Apology, chap.
50)85

IRENAEUS

“Chap. X. 1. Wherefore also John does appropriately relate that the Lord said to the Jews: “Ye search
the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And ye are not
willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life.” How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him,
unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His
Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? “For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also
have believed Me; for he wrote of Me;” [saying this,] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted
everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat
with him; at another time with Noah, giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another; inquiring
after Adam; at another, bringing down judgment upon the Sodomites; and again, when He becomes
visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush. And it would be
endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. Of the day of
His passion, too, he was not ignorant; but foretold Him, after a figurative manner, by the name given to
the passover; and at that very festival, which had been proclaimed such a long time previously by
Moses, did our Lord suffer, thus fulfilling the passover. And he did not describe the day only, but the
place also, and the time of day at which the sufferings ceased, and the sign of the setting of the sun,
saying: “Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any other of thy cities which the Lord God
gives thee; but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose that His name be called on there, thou
shalt sacrifice the passover at even, towards the setting of the sun.”
2. And already he had also declared His advent, saying, “There shall not fail a chief in Judah, nor
a leader from his loins, until He come for whom it is laid up, and He is the hope of the nations; binding
His foal to the vine, and His ass’s colt to the creeping ivy. He shall wash His stole in wine, and His
upper garment in the blood of the grape; His eyes shall be more joyous than wine, and His teeth whiter
than milk.” For, let those who have the reputation of investigating everything, inquire at what time a
prince and leader failed out of Judah, and who is the hope of the nations, who also is the vine, what was
the ass’s colt [referred to as] His, what the clothing, and what the eyes, what the teeth, and what the
wine, and thus let them investigate every one of the points mentioned; and they shall find that there was
none other announced than our Lord, Christ Jesus. Wherefore Moses, when chiding the ingratitude of
the people, said, “Ye infatuated people, and unwise, do ye thus requite the Lord?” And again, he
indicates that He who from the beginning founded and created them, the Word, who also redeems and
vivifies us in the last times, is shown as hanging on the tree, and they will not believe on Him. For he
says, “And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life.” And again,
“Has not this same one thy Father owned thee, and made thee, and created thee?”
Chap. XI. 1. But that it was not only the prophets and many righteous men, who, foreseeing
through the Holy Spirit His advent, prayed that they might attain to that period in which they should
see their Lord face to face, and hear His words, the Lord has made manifest, when He says to His
disciples, “Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have
not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." In what way, then, did
they desire both to hear and to see, unless they had foreknowledge of His future advent? But how could
they have foreknown it, unless they had previously received foreknowledge from Himself? And how
85 The hermeneutic which Jesus taught the disciples, viz., that all the Old Testament scriptures were fulfilled in his death,
burial, resurrection, and proclamation of the gospel to the nations, was the hermeneutic by which they established the
Church in truth.
do the Scriptures testify of Him, unless all things had ever been revealed and shown to believers by one
and the same God through the Word; He at one time conferring with His creature, and at another
propounding His law; at one time, again, reproving, at another exhorting, and then setting free His
servant, and adopting him as a son (in filium); and, at the proper time, bestowing an incorruptible
inheritance, for the purpose of bringing man to perfection? For He formed him for growth and increase,
as the Scripture says: “Increase and multiply.” (Against Heresies, Book Four, chap.s 10-11)

• Examples of literal/grammatical/Christ-centered hermeneutics

Josh 2, Clement of Rome, ANF, [1:8]

“Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet
thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all
them that believe and hope in God. Ye see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this
woman.” (1st Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 12)

Lam 4:20, Theodoret, Commentaries on the Prophets

“Now, he foretells of the suffering which brings salvation:

The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord, was taken in our corruptions, to whom we said, “In his
shadow we will live among the Gentiles”. 86
Let the Jews speak – whom does the prophetic word call Christ? But who of those called christs by
them, whether king, or prophet, or priest, is named Lord?” But they would not have the wherewithal to
reveal it, even if they should employ much false speaking. Indeed, it is evident how the prophet set
forth our Savior and Lord, having been seized by them because of their corruption of ungodliness. But
these, the prophets say, would be living in his shadow; and they believed through the holy apostles, and
their divine oracles which were proclaimed to the Gentiles. And we see beforehand the things about
him, the Holy Spirit having enlightened us. “The Spirit,” he says, “of our countenance is Christ the
Lord”: now, the prophet put this prophecy in the lamentations, teaching the Jews of that time how
through the hope of these things, not yet having been accomplished, they would obtain forbearance,
and enjoy the high calling, even though they were about to betray the Savior of the world to the
cross.” 87

• Scriptures seen as either types or direct prophecies of Christ

Gen 1:26, Barnabas, ANF [1:139]

Gen 49:10, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:173, 181]
Ex 3:6, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:184]
Ex 3:14, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:215]
Ex 17:14, Barnabas, ANF [1:145 (name of Joshua points to Christ)]
Ex 23:20-21, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:236]
Num 19, Barnabas, ANF [1:141-142 (extensive, but somewhat confused)]

86 The text Theodoret is working with here varies from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint in several points, the most
notable of which is his phrase, “Christ the Lord,” which in both the above reads rather, “the Christ of the Lord”. This
variant greatly impels the forcefulness of his argument; although it must be mentioned that, even working with the text
alternately reading, “the Christ of the Lord,” the definite majority of the early Church fathers both from the West and the
East arrived at the same basic position, viz., that Jeremiah is here directly prophesying of Christ.
87 My own translation [NP].
Num 21:6-9, Barnabas, ANF [1:145]
Josh 2, Clement of Rome, ANF, [1:8]
Acts 7:38, Stephen refers to the Angel that was with Moses as Christ, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:215]
Psa 1-2, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:176]
Psa 3:5, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:175]
Psa 8:5-6 [cf. Heb. 2:9], Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:231]
Psa 19:2ff [5], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:176, 181]
Psalm 22:1, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:216, 230]
Psalm 22:6, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:231]
Psalm 22:11, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:216]
Psa 22:16, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Psalm 22:17, 19, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Psa 22:18, 7, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:175]
Psalm 22:19, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:217]
Psalm 22:23, Barnabas, ANF [1:141]
Psa 24:7, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:180]
Psalm 45:1 [LXX], Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:221]
Psalm 40:10, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:229]
Psalm 44:8, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:229]
Psa 72, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:211 (extensive)]
Psalm 89:20, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:229]
Psalm 96 [“from the tree”; non-extant, accused Jews of erasing], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:176]
Psalm 110, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:178, 210-211 (extensive)]
Psalm 110:1, Barnabas, ANF [1:145]
Psalm 110:3, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:216]
Psalm 118:12, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Psalm 118:22, 24, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Proverbs 8:22, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:217]
Proverbs 9:1ff, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:217]
SOS 1:1, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:227]
SOS 7:9, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:227]
Isa 2:3, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:175]
Isa 7:14, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Isa 8:14, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Isa 9:6, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Isa 11:1, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Isa 28:16, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Isa 33:16-18, Barnabas, ANF [1:144]
Isa 35:6, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:179]
Isa 42:6-7, Barnabas, ANF [1:146]
Isa 42:6-43:6, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:207]
Isa 45:1, Barnabas, ANF [1:145]
Isaiah 45:16, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:220]
Isa 45:24, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:180]
Isa 49:6, Barnabas, ANF [1:146]
Isa 50:6, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:175]
Isaiah 50:6-9, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Isaiah 52:6 [Vulgate], Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:228]
Isa 53, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:179-180, 201]
Isaiah 53:4, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:230]
Isaiah 53:5, 7, Barnabas, ANF [1:139]
Isaiah 53:7, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:231]
Isaiah 53:8, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Isaiah 53:8, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:216]
Isa 55:3 [extensive], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:200, 201-202]
Isa 57:1, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:179, 202-203]
Isa 58:2, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Isa 61:1-2, Barnabas, ANF [1:146]
Isa 65:2 [1-3], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174, 175, 179, 206]
Lam 4:20, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:181]
Lam 4:20, Theodoret, Commentaries on the Prophets
Daniel 3:25, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:214]
Dan 7:13 [9-28], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:180, 202 (allusion), 209-210 (extensive)]
Micah 5:2, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:174]
Zech. 1:9, Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:175]
Zech 2:8, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:228]
Zech 12:3-14 [10], Justin Martyr, ANF, [1:180, 202 (allusion, refers to “Hosea”), 210 (allusion)]
Zech 13:7, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]

• Scriptures Used in Support of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Genesis 1:6-7, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:204]

Genesis 1:26, Barnabas, ANF [1:140]
Genesis 1:26-27, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:204, 209]
Genesis 18:1-3, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:215]
Genesis 19:24, Ambrose, NPNF [II:10:204]

VIII. Asceticism

• Cautions against

IRENAEUS

“To give an example: Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites (self-
controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly
blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race. Some of those
reckoned among them have also introduced abstinence from animal food, thus proving themselves
ungrateful to God, who formed all things.” ( Against Heresies, Book One, chap. 28). 88

• Reasons given in support of

LACTANTIUS

88 Prohibitions against marriage and animal meats are here called signs of heresy by Irenaeus, as, indeed, they were
prophesied of heretics by the apostle Paul before him (1 Tim. 4:1-5). In whose spirit, therefore, do they act who prohibit
the clergy from marriage, and bind upon the consciences of all men to abstain from animal meats at certain times and
seasons which they have designated of their own devising?
“Man, therefore, was made from different and opposite substances, as the world itself was made from
light and darkness, from life and death; and he has admonished us that these two things contend against
each other in man: so that if the soul, which has its origin from God, gains the mastery, it is immortal,
and lives in perpetual light; if, on the other hand, the body shall overpower the soul, and subject it to its
dominion, it is in everlasting darkness and death.” ( Divine Institutes, Book Two, chap. 13) 89

“There would be no frauds or plunderings if they had learned, through the instruction of God, to be
content with that which was their own, though little, so that they might prefer solid and eternal things to
those which are frail and perishable. There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution
of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is
condemned by God.” (Divine Institutes, Book Five, chap. 8) 90

“For as to walk in the right course is good, but to wander from it is evil, so to be moved by the
affections to that which is right is good, but to that which is corrupt is evil. For sensual desire, if it
does not wander from its lawful object, although it be ardent, yet is without fault . But if it desires an
unlawful object, although it be moderate, yet it is a great vice. Therefore it is not a disease to be angry,
nor to desire, nor to be excited by lust; but to be passionate, to be covetous or licentious, is a disease.
For he who is passionate is angry even with him with whom he ought not to be angry or at times when
he ought not. He who is covetous desires even that which is unnecessary. He who is licentious pursues
even that which is forbidden by the laws.” (Divine Institutes, Book Six, chap. 16) 91

89 Here and in many similar passages of the Institutes, Lactantius takes a very negative view of the physical body, which
was no doubt influential in the strong asceticism of so much the Church in his day and afterward.
90 Here, Lactantius' negative view of the physical element of mankind definitely leads him into an error that the Church has
never condoned, but has always allowed honorable marital intercourse after the age of childbearing. But for more, see
below.
91 A principle which seems to be at variance with what Lactantius has said elsewhere concerning marital intercourse, etc.