In the Anglican Communion (the American branch of which is known as the Episcopal Church), it has for several centuries been standard practice to ask a candidate for ordination to the priesthood several questions, of which I reproduce the second:
BISHOP: Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture? ANSWER: I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace.
This position (not restricted to Anglican circles) is known as SOLA SCRIPTURA. Some objections have been raised against it, as follows:
OBJECTION: The doctrine of SS contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.
REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form: (1) SS = "All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture." (2) SS is not stated in Holy Scripture. (3) Therefore, SS is not a true proposition.
But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
(1) SS = "All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture." (2) SS is not stated in Holy Scripture. (3) Therefore, SS is not a truth necessary to salvation.
And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.
OBJECTION: The Doctrine of SS contradicts Holy Scripture. For we read in John 20:30 and John 21:25 that Jesus did many things that John has not written. Further, we read in Luke 24:27 that when the risen Christ was walking with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. This conversation is nowhere recorded, but surely it constitutes revelation.
REPLY: As for John's saying that Jesus did some things that John does not record, one might reply to this on the literal level by saying, "True, there are both words and deeds of Jesus that are reported in the Synoptic Gospels and not in John. But John's statement is perfectly compatible with the thesis that every teaching of Jesus is recorded somewhere in the New Testament." More to the point, we may look at the words of John 20:30f
+ Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the + disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are + written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son + of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
John here appears to be claiming something much stronger than SOLA SCRIPTURA: namely, that all doctrines necessary to salvation are taught in the Gospel of John, so that he who has read this Gospel will know all that he needs to know in order to have eternal life in Christ. But if this is so, then the weaker statement that the Holy Scriptures collectively contain all that we need to know for our salvation clearly follows.
Let us consider the statement in Luke 24:27. Two disciples were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. The risen Christ, Whom they did not recognize, joined them and asked them why they were sad, and they spoke of the Crucifixion and the apparent destruction of all their hopes. Christ answered: "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.
It is claimed that we have here a clear-cut example of a revelation that is not recorded in Holy Scripture. But no one denies that there have been revelations, instances of God speaking, where the content of the message is not recorded for us in Holy Scripture. We are told, for example (Acts 21:8), that the four daughters of Philip the evangelist prophesied, but no quotations from them are given. In John 8:8 we are told (not all manuscripts record this), that Jesus stooped and wrote something in the sand, but we are not told what it was. In Revelation 10:4, we are told that John heard a message spoken by "the seven thunders," and was about to write it down, but was forbidden from doing so. This is not in dispute. The relevant question is whether there are any messages that God intends FOR US that He has not caused to be recorded in Holy Scripture. Remember that the doctrine being contrasted with SOLA SCRIPTURA is that some of the messages that God has for us are contained, not in the Scriptures, but in Sacred Tradition. In order for Luke 24:27 to be a relevant example, it will have to be maintained that the Emmaus Discourse of Our Lord contains a message intended for the whole Church, and that that message was not written down in the Scriptures, but rather handed down as part of the Tradition. Now in fact we do have some idea of what Our Lord said in the Emmaus Discourse. Luke tells us that He reminded the disciples of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which were applicable to His own life and death. Remember that the disciples did not yet recognize Him. They knew Him only as a stranger they had met by chance on the road. Accordingly, we may be sure that He did not say of any text, "You are to believe on My Authority that this is a prophecy of the Christ." Rather, He said, "Now that you think of it, you can see for yourselves in the light of what you know about Jesus of Nazareth that this is a prophecy that applies to Him, and shows how His death was not a foiling of God's plan to redeem Israel, but an essential part of carrying it out." Which passages from the Hebrew Scriptures did He apply to Himself? Some passages we find His earliest followers applying to Him, such as Isaiah 53:7-8 (applied by Philip the Evangelist in Acts 8:26-35) or Psalm 2:1-2 (applied by the Jerusalem congregation shortly after Pentecost in Acts 4:25-27) and so on. Other passages, such as Psalm 22:8 (or Psalm 22:16, though here the meaning of the Hebrew is disputed) we may conclude for ourselves are Messianic prophecies, even if they are not (so far as I remember) cited as such in the New Testament. In short, we may make an educated guess as to the gist of the Emmaus Discourse, BY MEANS OF A DILIGENT STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Have we any other source? We have the writings of some of the early Christians, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, who cite various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as prophecies of Our Lord. They do not, by and large, give us any hint whether they have noticed the applicability of the passages for themselves or have had it pointed out to them by their predecessors, and they certainly do not tell us that their interpretations are derived from the teachings of Our Lord Himself. It seems to me that the strength of their interpretations rests on their own inherent reasonableness, and not on Divine Authority.
But I digress. The question remains: Does God have any message intended for all Christians, something that we need to know, that is essential for our salvation, or at least of great spiritual benefit to us, that He has revealed to the apostles and prophets of New Testament times, for our information, and that we have access to through the Sacred Tradition, but that has not been recorded for us in the pages of Holy Scripture? I see no evidence for the affirmative.
OBJECTION: The proposition SS contradicts church history, in that it was not possible for the earliest Christians to consult the New Testament, since it had not yet been written.
REPLY: The earliest Christians had the Apostles with them. The Apostles wrote down the revelation, so that it might be available when they were gone.
OBJECTION: The proposition SS contradicts church history, in that no one ever asserted the doctrine before Martin Luther invented it.
REPLY: I propose to provide, in the following lines, evidence to the contrary.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Let us consider the view of St. Thomas Aquinas, the theologian whom most Roman Catholics regard as the greatest systematic expounder of their position. In discussing the Creeds, he writes as follows:
> Objection: It would seem that it is unsuitable for the
> articles of faith to be embodied in a creed. Because Holy Writ
> is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can
> lawfully be made, since it is written (Deut. 4:2): "You shall
> not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take
> away from it." Therefore it was unlawful to make a creed as a
> rule of faith, after Holy Writ had once been published.
> Reply: The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ,
> diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes
> obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from
> Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are
> unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of
> faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with
> other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a
> clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to
> the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ,
> but something gathered from it.
> (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part,
> Question 1, Article 9)
Thomas, you will notice, does NOT say that in order to learn the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs to have an infallible or authoritative interpreter, but only "long study and practice." His position seems clear enough. We gain our knowledge of the revealed truth from the Scriptures, just as we gain our knowledge of, say, the facts of chemistry by experiment and observation. And someone might argue that, ideally, the best way to teach someone chemistry is to hand him some beakers and test tubes and Bunsen burners and say, "Go to work. Examine things. Observe them. Heat them and chill them and combine them and weigh and measure them and draw your own conclusions." And the speaker would have a point. However, since life is short, we provide the student with a short-cut in the form of a textbook which contains a summary of the results of centuries of experiment and observation by thousands of chemists. Similarly, it might be argued that the ideal way of teaching someone the truth of faith is to hand him a Bible and say: "Start reading. See what it says, and draw your own conclusions." However, since life is short, we provide a summary of the Christian faith in the form of the Apostles's Creed or the Nicene Creed. But note that if the student asks, after reading the text, "How do we KNOW that an atom of oxygen has a nucleus with eight electrons surrounding it, two in the inner shell and six in the outer?" the answer must ultimately take the form of an appeal to experiment and observation. Simply saying, "We know because the text says so," is not good enough. The authority of the text rests on its claim to be a faithful summary of the results of experimentation. Similarly, the validity of the Creed rests upon its being an accurate representation of the truth of faith as taught in Holy Scripture. And this, according to Thomas, because the truth of faith is revealed to us nowhere else. SOLA SCRIPTURA!
Again, in another place, Thomas writes as follows:
> Some say than even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man
> would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and
> seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.
> For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the
> creature's due, can be made known to us only through being
> revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is
> made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred
> Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reaon of
> the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that
> the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for
> sin; so that, had sin not existed, the Incarnation would not
> have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; --
> even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.
> (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 1, Article 3)
Here also, the position of Thomas seems clear. Some truths we can know simply by "figuring them out." (Thus, although we learn from Numbers 7:86 that 12 times 10 = 120, and from the rest of the chapter some other parts of the 12 times table, we would be able to figure them out without a special revelation!) Other truths we can know only if God reveals them to us. And if a truth is of the second kind, we can know it only if God has revealed it in the Holy Scriptures, since that is where His revelation of His will to us is to be found. SOLA SCRIPTURA!
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
I might rest my case here, since Thomas Aquinas is certainly earlier than Martin Luther. However, there are Roman Catholics, even some on this list, who do not find Aquinas to their liking, and some of them might be tempted to say that they have always suspected Thomas of being a Protestant at heart, and that all I have shown is that the Lutheran heresy was already at work a few centuries before Luther himself arrived on the scene. Accordingly, I present a few quotations from Christian writers of an earlier period, to show that the view known as SOLA SCRIPTURA is very early and widespread indeed. A few biographical notes on the persons quoted follow in an Appendix. A good encyclopedia (BRITANNICA, and I assume the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA) will give more details on most of them. An asterisk by a name as printed below marks the writer as a Universal Doctor (more or less the theological equivalent of a Nobel Prize winner). I confess that I have not gathered these quotations myself, but have relied on the work of others.
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith. (Adv. H. 3:1)
Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150?-213?)
They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (Stromata 7:16:3)
ORIGEN (185?-252)
In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)
No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)
As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)
Consider how imminent their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200?-258)
Whence comes this tradition? does it descend from the Lord's authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? for those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)
HIPPOLYTUS ( -230???)
There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this word cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA* (300?-375)
The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN* (340?-396)
How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)
ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (315-367)
O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. ... You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings, but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel. (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (330?-395)
Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (315?-386)
Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM* (347-407)
[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures. (FOOTNOTE???)
The man of God could not be perfect without the Scriptures. [Paul says to Timothy:] "You have the Scriptures: if you desire to learn anything, you may learn it from them." But if he writes thise things to Timothy, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us. (Hom. 9 in 2 Tim. 1:9)
It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws. I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor)
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA ( -412)
It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)
ST. JEROME* (342?-420)
The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)
Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1)
As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)
Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult)
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (380?-444)
That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Cyril. Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)
THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (393?-458?)
By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded (Dial. 1, Atrept.)
I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.)
We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)
ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (675?-749?)
We receive and acknowledge and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, and we seek after nothing beyond these. (de Fid. Ortho. 1:1:1)
CONCLUSION
The doctrine SOLA SCRIPTURA, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
HISTORICAL NOTES
For the convenience of the reader new to early Church history, I include some background notes on some of the writers just quoted.
GENERAL NOTE: Writers about the Church during the first six centuries (the Patristic Period, or Era of the Fathers) generally recognize eight writers as the Eight Doctors of the Universal Church. ("Doctor" here means "teacher.") Four of them are Greek: Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzus (not to be confused with Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil the Great -- the three of them are known as the Cappadocian Fathers). Four of them are Latin: Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. In the following list, they are marked with asterisks. Their prestige and authority is considerable with traditional Christians of all sorts.
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
Irenaeus as a young man in Smyrna (near Ephesus, in what is now western Turkey) heard the preaching of the aged Polycarp, who as a young man had heard the preaching of the Apostle John. Later, Irenaeus moved to Gaul (now France), where he became Bishop of Lyons. He is thus an important link between Eastern and Western Christianity. His principal work is the REFUTATION OF HERESIES, a defense of orthodox Christianity against its Gnostic rivals. A shorter work is his PROOF OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING, a brief summary of Christian teaching, largely concerned with Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150?-213?)
Clement, a native of Athens, was converted to Christianity by Pantaenus, founder of the Catechetical School at Alexandria (then the intellectual capital of the Mediterranean world), and succeeded his teacher as head of the School about 180. For over 20 years he labored effectively as an apologist for the faith and catechist of the faithful. He regarded the science and philosophy of the Greeks as being, like the Torah of the Hebrews, a preparation for the Gospel, and the curriculum of his School undertook to give his students both a knowledge the Gospel of Christ and a sound liberal education. His speculative theology, his scholarly defense of he faith and his willingness to meet non-Christian scholars on their own ground, helped to establish the good reputation of Christianity in the world of learning and prepare the way for his pupil, Origen, the most eminent theologian of Greek Christianity. Clement is not on the Roman calendar, but is on the Eastern calendar and many modern revisions of the Anglican calendar (also ELCA?). His influence has been considerable.
ORIGEN (185?-252)
Origen succeeded his master Clement as head of the Catechatical School of Alexandria. His scholarship was prodigious -- he is said to have written over 6000 books. He produced the Hexapla, an edition of the Hebrew Scriptures in six columns, consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text written in Greek letters, and four standard translations of the text into Greek for side-by-side comparison. His learning aroused jealousy, and his philosophical speculations aroused suspicion. The combination got him into trouble, and as a result he was never canonized. However, he is quoted with respect by all parties in the Church.
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200?-258)
For most of his life, Cyprian was a barrister and a teacher of public speaking at Carthage, but when he was 46 yars old he became a Christian, and only two years later became bishop of Carthage. When the Emperor Decius persecuted Christians in 249, Cyprian went into hiding. After the death of Decius in 251, Cyprian led in formulating a moderate policy toward those who had denied the faith under duress, rejecting both the Novatian position that they were forever cut off, and the alternate position that no period of probation or other disability of any kind could lawfully be imposed on them. In this, he was in agreement with Pope Cornelius, but later he was to have a serious disagreement with Pope Stephen I, who recognized baptism by heretics as valid, whereas Cyprian held that those who were baptized by heretics and later joined the Catholic Church ought to be rebaptized. Cyprian wrote many essays, the best known being, "On the Unity of the Catholic Church." In 258, persecution began again under the Emperor Valerius, and this time Cyprian did not flee. He was arrested, refused to recant, was sentenced to exile, retried a little later, sentenced to death, and beheaded.
HIPPOLYTUS ( -230???)
My source for the quotation found in the preceding section gives 330 as the date for the martyrdom of Hippolytus. I assume that this is a misprint for 230. If it is NOT a misprint, then he has a Hippolytus whom I do not know. St. Hippolytus, martyred around 230, was a scholar who wrote in Greek, but was resident in or near Rome. (Some Eastern writers refer to him as the Bishop of Rome, but he is not on the list of Bishops of Rome at that time. From this fact, some have inferred that he was an anti-pope, that is, the head of a rival faction who regarded him as the true Bishop of Rome. They explain his canonization by assuming that he was reconciled with the Pope before his death. However, a simpler explanation is that he was Bishop of Ostia, the port city of Rome, and that the Eastern writers, observing him to be the most important Christian writer in Italy at that time, simply made a mistake.) His best known work is the PHILOSOPHOUMENA, a refutation of various Gnostic heresies. He also wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel, and a work called THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, which complains that public worship is getting very sloppy, and explains in detail how church services ought to be conducted, and were conducted back in the Good Old Days. It is one of our most valuable sources of information on the worship of the early Church.
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA* (300?-375)
For those Christians who believe that the Word (John 1:1) is co-eternal with the Father, Athanasius is probably the greatest champion of the Christian faith since the death of the Apostles. For those who think otherwise, he is The Villain who Led the Church Astray. Early in the 300's, after the Emperor Constantine had put an end to the persecution of the Christians, a presbyter Arius in Alexandria began to teach of the Word that "God begat him, and before he was begotten, he did not exist." Athanasius replied that the begetting, or uttering, of the Word by the Father is an eternal relation between Them, and not a temporal event. Arius was condemned by the bishops of Egypt (with the exceptions of Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmorica), and went to Nicomedia, from which he wrote letters to bishops throughout the world, stating his position. The Emperor Constantine undertook to resolve the dispute by calling a council of bishops from all over the Christian world. This council met in Nicea, just across the straits from what is now Istanbul, in the year 325, and consisted of 317 bishops. The party of Athanasius was overwhelmingly in the majority. (The western, or Latin, half of the Empire was very ill represented, but it was solidly Athanasian, so that it its bishops had attended in force, the vote would have been still more lopsided.) It remained to formulate a creedal statement to express the consensus. The initial effort was to find a formula from Holy Scripture that would express the full deity of the Son, equally with the Father. However, the Arians cheerfully agreed to all such formulations, having interpreted them already to fit their own views. (Those of you who have conversed with members of the Watchtower Society, who consider themselves the spiritual heirs of Arius, will know how this works.) Finally, the Greek word "homo-ousios" (meaning "of the same substance, or nature, or essence") was introduced, chiefly because it was one word that could not be understood to mean what the Arians meant. Some of the bishops present, although in complete disagreement with Arius, were reluctant to use a term not found in the Scriptures, but eventually saw that the alternative was a creed that both sides would sign, each understanding it in its own way, and that the Church could not afford to leave the question of whether the Son is truly God (the Arians said "a god") undecided. So the result was that the Council adopted a creed which is a shorter version of what we now call the Nicene Creed, declaring the Son to be "of one substance with the Father." At the end, there were only two holdouts, the aforesaid Secundas and Theonas. No sooner was the council over than its consensus began to fall apart. Constantine had expected that the result would be unity, but found that the Arians would not accept the decision, and that many of the orthodox bishops were prepared to look for a wording a little softer than that of Nicea, something that sounded orthodox, but that the Arians would accept. All sorts of compromise formulas were worked out, with all shades of variation from the formula of Nicea. Athanasius (who had been only a deacon at the time of the Council, but soon afterward succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria) refused to participate in these negotiations, having correctly suspected that once the orthodox party showed a willingness to make reaching an agreement their highest priority they would end up giving away the store. For this, he was regarded as a trouble-maker by Constantine and his successors, and was banished from Alexandria a total of five times by various emperors. (Hence the expression "Athanasius contra mundum," or, "Athanasius against the world.") Eventually, Christians who believed in the Deity of Christ came to see that once they were prepared to abandon the Nicene formulation, they were on a slippery slope that led to regarding the Logos as simply a high-ranking angel. They accordingly re-affirmed the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, a final triumph that Athanasius did not live to see. It was a final triumph as far as councils of bishops were concerned, but the situation was complicated by the fact that after Constantine there were several Arian emperors (not counting the Emperor Julian, who was a pagan, but correctly saw that the most effective way that he could fight Christianity was to throw all his weight on the side of the Arians), and that under one of them Arian missionaries were sent to convert the Goths, who became the backbone of the Roman Army, then composed chiefly of foreign mercenaries, with the result that for many years Arianism was considered the mark of a good Army man. The conversion of Clovis, King of the Franks, in 496, to orthodox Christianity either gave the Athanasian party the military power to crush Arianism or denied the Arian Goths the military supremacy that would have enabled them to crush Athanasian Christianity, depending on your point of view. Since Alexandria had the best astronomers, it was the duty of the Bishop of Alexandria to write to the other bishops every year and tell them the correct date for Easter. Naturally, his annual letter on this topic contained other material as well. One Easter Letter (or Paschal Letter) of Athanasius is well known for giving a list of the books that ought to be considered part of the New Testament. He lists the same 27 that are recognized today. (If you will look at your list of New Testament books, you may note that Matthew through 1 Thessalonians were never in dispute, that the next four were subject to relatively little dispute, and that the remaining books had more trouble being accepted. There were also a few that looked as if they might make the list, but eventually did not, the most conspicuous being the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.) (For a dramatic but historically accurate account of the Council of Nicea, see the play, THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE, by Dorothy L Sayers, available in book form.)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN* (340?-396)
Ambrose was governor of Northern Italy, with capital at Milan. When the see of Milan fell vacant, it seemed likely that rioting would result, since the city was evenly divided between Arians and Athanasians. Ambrose went to the meeting where the election was to take place, and appealed to the crowd for order and good will on both sides. He ended up being elected bishop with the support of both sides. He gave away his wealth, and lived in simplicity. By his preaching, he converted the diocese to the Athanasian position, except for the Goths and some members of the Imperial Household. On one occasion, the Empress ordered him to turn over a church to the Arians so that her Gothic soldiers could worship in it. Ambrose refused, and he and his people occupied the church. Ambrose composed Latin hymns in the rhythm of "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow," and taught them to the people, who sang them in the church the soldiers surrounded it. The Goths were unwilling to attack a hymn-singing congregation, and Ambrose won that dispute. He subsequently won another dispute, when the Emperor, enraged by a crowd who defied him, ordered them all killed by his soldiers. When he next appeared at church, Ambrose met him at the door and said, "You may not come in. There is blood on your hands." The emperor finally agreed to do public penance and to promise that thereafter he would never carry out a sentence of death without a forty-day delay after pronouncing it. Less creditable, to modern Christians, is his argument with the emperor when certain Christians burned a Jewish synagogue, and the emperor commanded them to make restitution. Ambrose maintained that no Christian could be compelled to provide money for the building of a non-Christian house of worship, no matter what the circumstances. Ambrose was largely responsible for the conversion of St. Augustine. The hymn TE DEUM LAUDAMUS ("We praise Thee, O God") was long thought to have been composed by Ambrose in thanksgiving for that conversion. The current opinion is that Ambrose did not write it, but that he may well have written the Creed known as the Athanasian Creed.
ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (315-367)
Hilary is sometimes called "the Athanasius of the West." He was bishop of Poitiers, and when he refused to sign a condemnation of Athanasius, the Arian emperor Constantius (one of the sons of Constantine) banished him to Phrygia in 357. His exile lasted three years, during which time he wrote several essays, including ON THE TRINITY. Finally the Emperor was forced to send him back to Gaul because he was causing such difficulties for the Arians in the East. In 364, he journeyed to Milan, where he engaged in public debate with the Arian bishop Auxentius, and persuaded him of the error of his ways.
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (330?-395)
Gregory of Nyssa, his brother Basil the Great, and Basil's best friend Gregory of Nazianzus, are known collectively as the Cappadocian Fathers. They were a major force in the triumph of the Athanasian position at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Gregory of Nyssa tends to be overshadowed by the other two. His writings are largely mystical and devotional in character.
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (315?-386)
Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem for 35 years, but was exiled three times for a total of 16 years by various Arian emperors. He is best known for his CATECHESES, eighteen instructions to be given during Lent to candidates for Baptism, plus five to be given during Eastertide to the newly baptized.
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM* (347-407)
John was called "Chrysostom" ("Golden Mouth") because of his eloquence. He was Bishop of Antioch, and an outstanding preacher. (Audiences were warned not to carry large sums of money when they went to hear him speak, since pickpockets found it very easy to rob his hearers -- they were too intent on his words to notice what was happening.) His sermons are mostly straightforward expositions of Holy Scripture (he has extensive commentaries on both Testaments, with special attention to the Epistles of Paul), and he emphasizes the literal meaning, whereas the style popular at Alexandria tended to read allegorical meanings into the text. He loved the city and people of Antioch, and they loved him. However, he became so famous that the Empress at Constantinople decided that she must have him for her court preacher, and she had him kidnapped and brought to Constaninople and there made bishop. This was a failure all around. His sermons against corruption in high places earned him powerful enemies (including the Empress), and he was sent into exile, where he died.
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA ( -412)
Theophilus became Bishop of Alexandria in 385, ten years after the death of Athanasius. He was succeeded by his nephew Cyril, of whom more below. He was a man of fiery temperament, and ruthless and violent in the pursuit of what he conceived to be his duty. Having obtained the consent of the government, he destroyed pagan temples, and the monastaries of monks whose views differed from his own. He is on the Egyptian (Coptic) and the Syrian calendars, but not on most eastern or any western ones. Summary: unpleasant but orthodox (Right but Repulsive).
ST. JEROME* (342?-420)
Jerome is best known as the translator of the Bible into Latin. A previous version existed, but Jerome's version far surpassed it in scholarship and in literary quality. Jerome was well versed in classical Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew), but deliberately translated the Bible into the style of Latin that was actually spoken and written by the majority of persons in his own time. His translation of the Old Testament is from the Hebrew, except for the Psalms, which he translated from the Greek, since many Christians were already familiar with the Psalms in a translation based on the Greek, and bitterly resented any change in the familiar. (He salved his scholarly feelings by publishing a translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew in an Appendix.) He was intemperate in controversy, and any correspondence with him tended to degenerate into a flame war. (His friendship with Augustine, conducted by letter, nearly ended before it began. Fortunately Augustine sized him up correctly, soothed his feelings, and was extremely tactful thereafter.)
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)
Born in Africa, near Carthage, son of a pagan father and a Christian mother, Augustine was exposed to Christianity at an early age, but had other interests. He was a gifted student, though he never mastered Greek -- he tells us that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man, and he rebelled and refused to study, and by the time he realized that he really needed to know Greek, it was too late, and although he acquired a smattering of the language, he was never really at home in it. However, his mastery of Latin was another matter. He became an expert both in the eloquent use of the language and in the use of clever arguments to make his points. For a long time he was attracted by the teachings of Manicheeism (a dualistic philosophy which taught that there are two gods of equal power and that the universe is the scene of an unending battle between light and darkness, good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, spirit and matter, soul and body, etc.), but finally decided that this philosophy, which claimed to be especially suited for the intellectually elite, and to have anwers for everything, did not have the answers. He eventually ended up as chief professor of rhetoric of the Imperial City of Milan, where he met Ambrose. Partly because Ambrose had answers for his questions, partly because he admired Ambrose personally, and chiefly (or so he believed) because, God touched his heart, he underwent conversion and was baptised. His own account of his life up to a time shortly after his conversion is told in his book, CONFESSIONS, a highly readable work available in English. Although written as an account of his life, it keeps digressing into speculations about the nature of time, the nature of causality, the nature of free will, the motives of human action, etc. After his conversion, he went back to his native Africa in 387, where he was ordained a priest in 391 and consecrated bishop of Hippo in 396. He was a diligent shepherd of his flock, but also found time to write extensively. His book THE CITY OF GOD is a reply to those who said that the Roman Empire was falling apart because the Christians had taken over; he discusses the work of God in history, and the relation between the Christian as citizen of an earthly commonwealth and the Christian as citizen of Heaven. He also wrote ON THE TRINITY, and an extensive series of letters in controversy with the Donatists (a group who held -- this is a great oversimplification -- that a sacrament is only as good as the man who administers it, and that if you were baptized by Jimmy Swaggart, you had better have it done again, or you are in trouble), with the Pelagians (who held -- another classic-comics explanation -- that there is no need for all this fuss about the grace of God: that admittedly sin is a problem, but all that is needed is to get everybody to agree to stop sinning, and then everything will be perfect, right?), and with everyone else in sight. His written output was vast. His surviving works (and it is assumed that the majority did not survive) include 113 books and treatises, over 200 letters, and over 500 sermons. His work greatly influenced Luther and Calvin, to the point where for a while Roman Catholic speakers and writers were wary of quoting him lest they be suspected of Protestant tendencies.
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (380?-444)
Cyril began his career as Bishop of Alexandria by showing himself to be an ill-tempered, quarrelsome, hasty, and violent man. He shut the churches of the Novatianists (a group of Christians who were indistinguishable in doctrine and manner of worship from other Christians, but who as descendants of those who had stood firm in the persecutions 260 years earlier could have nothing to do with the descendants of those who had not), he drove out the Jews, he quarrelled with the imperial prefect Orestes, and with Orestes' friend Hypatia, a distinguished neo-Platonist scholar. (Hypatia was murdered by a mob. There is no evidence that Cyril was directly guilty, but the murderers were persons who regarded him as their leader.) In short, he made a bad beginning. Then there arose a controversy over the relation between Christ's Divinity and His Humanity. One view, associated with the name of Nestorius, spoke of Jesus as a sinless man in whom the Spirit of God fully dwelt, suggesting that the difference between Jesus and any other good man was a matter of degree. (Jones is an almost sinless man in whom the Spirit of God dwells almost fully. He is therefore 99% whatever Jesus is 100%.) This may not do justice to the subtlety of the Nestorian position, but it is the danger that others saw in it, and the Nestorians were unable to explain what safeguards their position had against this danger. Cyril wrote learnedly and with great logic and conviction against the Nestorian position, and was largely instrumental in getting it condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Afterwards (surprisingly in view of his earlier record), he worked to reconcile the two parties, and to bring many of the less extreme Nestorians back into the fellowship of the church. But it is as a theologian and a scholar, not as a bishop or human-relations man, that Cyril is honored. (I do not find him on any Anglican calendars, and I think I know why.)
THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (393?-458?)
Theodoret was Bishop of Cyrrhus, near Antioch. His writings include "On the Incarnation," "Therapeutike" (or "A Cure for Pagan Evils"), and "Eranistes" (or "The Beggar"). He worked tirelessly to reconcile disputing factions in the Church of his day, chiefly those who emphasized the Two Natures in Christ at the expense of the Oneness of His Person (the Nestorians, centered at Antioch), and those who were at the opposite extreme (the Monophysites, centered in Alexandria). He is perhaps the originator of the terminology "two natures, one person." He was suspected of Nestorianism, although he declared that the Virgin Mary is rightly called "theotokos" (God-bearer), which the Nestorians denied. He was eventually cleared of the charge.
ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (675?-749?)
John is generally accounted "the last of the Fathers". He was the son of a Christian official at the court of the Moslem khalif Abdul Malek, and succeeded to his father's office. In his time there was a dispute among Christians between the Iconoclasts (image-breakers) and the Iconodules (image-venerators). The former maintained that the use of religious images was a violation of the Second Commandment ("Thou shalt not make a graven image... thou shalt not bow down to them.") The Iconodules replied that before the Incarnation, it was improper to portray the invisible God in visible form, but that by taking human nature and a human body upon Himself in the person of Jesus, God had hallowed matter, and hallowed the human form, and made matter the vehicle through which He communicates His presence to us, and that therefore the commandment must now be understood in a new way, just as the commandment to "Remember the Sabbath Day" must be understood in a new way since the Resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. The Emperor, Leo III, was a vigorous upholder of the Iconoclast position. John wrote in favor of the Iconodules with great effectiveness. Ironically, he was able to do this chiefly because he had the protection of the moslem khalif. John is also known as a hymn-writer. Two of his hymns are sung in English at Easter ("Come ye faithful, raise the strain" and "The Day of Resurrection! Earth, tell it out abroad!"). Many more are sung in the Eastern Church. His major writing is THE FOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE, of which the third part, THE ORTHODOX FAITH, is a summary of Christian doctrine as expounded by the Greek Fathers.