For the early Church's greatest polemicists, the rule of faith was not a supplement to Scripture — it was the lens through which Scripture must be read, and the benchmark that exposed false teaching. Irenaeus's strategy against the Gnostics in *Against Heresies* was to show that Gnostic cosmology was incompatible with the rule held by every apostolic church, from Rome to Smyrna to Corinth. Tertullian's *On the Prescription of Heretics* argued even more sharply: heretics have no standing to appeal to Scripture because they are outside the rule of faith that determines who legitimately inherits the apostolic deposit. Tertullian's legal argument (*praescriptio*) was that the question "Who owns Scripture?" must be settled before any debate about its meaning can begin — and the answer is the Church that holds the apostolic rule.
Irenaeus argues that heretics cannot settle disputes by Scripture alone because they interpret it without the apostolic rule of faith — they are "like those who have no key, and who are unable to enter by means of the passages of Scripture." The Church's apostolic tradition, preserved through the succession of bishops, is the authorized framework for reading Scripture; outside it, any reading is possible and no reading is authoritative.
Tertullian's legal argument: the heretics have no right to appeal to Scripture because they do not hold the apostolic rule of faith. "To know nothing in opposition to the rule of faith is to know all things" — inquiry is legitimate only within the rule; outside it, it is not Christian inquiry at all. The apostolic churches are the owners of Scripture; others are squatters. (ANF-03)
Go deeper
Search 1,800+ years of primary sources — Church Fathers, Reformers, councils, and historic theologians.
1 free query per day · No account needed to start