Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–235)
It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)
Hippolytus (d. 235)
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against Heresies, 9)
Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373)
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.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)
Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
These quotes are interesting but don’t show that the Catholic claim of “Scripture+Tradition+Magisterium” is necessarily false. Briefly, these quotes when understood with the Catholic teaching that nothing can *violate* Scripture are, for the most part (except one which I will speak of in a minute) indicative of same. That is, while they demonstrate the material sufficiency of Scripture they do not necessarily demonstrate the material sufficiency of Scripture *alone* is all that is reauired for the formation and education of the Christian.
Regarding the quote attributed to Hippolytus which is the most strong for the Protestant case (given the above clarification). Firstly, its citation is wrong. That quote is not found in “Against Heresies” (there is in fact no such work by Hippolytus), there is a “Refutation of all Heresies” by him, (more on that in a moment too) but no “Against Heresies”.
At any rate the quote you provide is to be found in Hippolytus’ “Against Noetus”, the 9th “chapter” or paragraph if you wish. It is as you cite here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
Now at this point it strikes me first that it’s at least a happy coincidence, if not Divine Providence, that the quote of Hippolytus is directly beneath another quote by Tertullian in your post. It reads:
“It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)”
This shows that Tertullian was arguing for the validity of the Trinity from Scripture as Hippolytus was, albeit for different reasons. But we must remember this fact, that both men here (in the two quotes you provided) are speaking about the Trinity. And how it can be demonstrated using Scripture. Hippolytus even goes so far as to clearly assert Scripture alone is suited for this task.
However, is this then a primitive reflection of the Protestant notion of “sola scriptura”? That is, are these two men saying that all tradition and/or teachings of the Church are to be either found in or ruled by Scripture alone? No they are not.
Tertullian himself is merely saying that all of Scripture, and not just portions, can be used to demonstrate the Trinity. Similarly for Hippolytus. This claim though is not the same as saying “all doctrine must be ruled by Scripture” in so much as if it isn’t demonstrated in Scripture, it’s not to be believed. No, in brief and in summary, these men are only saying that in the topic of the Trinity only, Scripture suffices and more generally they claim that no dogma at all can violate Scripture. While the Church may take exception to the former, the latter is merely Church teaching. For indeed we claim that no dogma as taught by the Church violates Scripture. It is only the opinion of others that is offered as proof against this claim so I will not speak to that here.
However what of the strong positive words of Hippolytus “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.” One may ask, “Does that not say plainly, there is no other source of knowledge of God than the Holy Scriptures”?
I will state now in reply, in case that is a question on anyone’s tongue, “No, it is not saying that in a general sense, as if the Scriptures alone are the only source of knowledge of God, rather what the Saint was saying there is that to discover and know the Triune nature of God, Scriptures are all that are required, not that everything about Him is contained in the Scriptures.” How can I state this so boldly, with such assurance, when the words of the Saint alone as they are seem to contradict me entirely?
It’s quite simple. It’s because the same man who wrote the above also wrote the following:
“Since, however, reason compels us to plunge into the very depth of narrative, we conceive we should not be silent, but, expounding the tenets of the several schools with minuteness, we shall evince reserve in nothing. Now it seems expedient, even at the expense of a more protracted investigation, not to shrink from labour; for we shall leave behind us no trifling auxiliary to human life against the recurrence of error, when all are made to behold, in an obvious light, the clandestine rites of these men, and the secret orgies which, retaining under their management, they deliver to the initiated only. But none will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine. Not even, however, labouring with every energy of body and soul, do we tire in our attempt adequately to render our Divine Benefactor a fitting return; and yet withal we do not so requite Him in a becoming manner, except we are not remiss in discharging the trust committed to us, but careful to complete the measure of our particular opportunity, and to impart to all without grudging whatever the Holy Ghost supplies, not only bringing to light, by means of our refutation, matters foreign (to our subject), but also whatsoever things the truth has received by the grace of the Father, and ministered to men. These also, illustrating by argument and creating testimony by letters, we shall unabashed proclaim.
“In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures— nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions...”
This is from Hippolytus’ “Refutation of all Heresies”, found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050101.htm
The careful reader should read this also plainly, and also ask of himself, “Is it reasonable to believe this same man who wrote the above also believes that in ONLY Scripture, is the entire knowledge of God to be found, in other words some proto-Protestant Saint, or does what he wrote above come off as sounding, well, pretty darn Catholic!” I submit the latter especially when one takes special note of the following:
“taking nothing from the holy Scriptures— NOR is it from preserving the succession of any saint”
Emphasis added this time. The objective reader is FORCED to see here that Hippolytus himself is giving this “succession of any saint” (which is really Tradition) the same weight as Holy Scripture. Otherwise why would he say the numerous heretics he goes on to dismantle have neither Holy Scripture OR Tradition? Meaning obviously (again obvious to the objective seeker of truth) that if they at least had Tradition they would have a leg to stand on, even if they don’t have Scripture. But they don’t even have that, so he feels confident in teaching how they are in error.
Truly the entire quote *I* have provided reads just like any “Papist” would talk today, with all the appeals to “succession” and office of “teaching” the “CHURCH” has, again, all from Hippolytus. So one is forced to conclude one of two things either Hippolytus is a crazy man, who in one tome speaks of the teaching authority of the Church, and another of “Scripture alone” or perhaps the interpretation I gave above is correct, that on the topic of the Trinity, and only the Trinity, Hippolytus would say Scripture is sufficient but he does not claim such sufficiency for all the works of God.
Else he is a mad man. Hardly a paragon anyone should claim as a reliable witness of anything.