This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
1:4: New Testament Scripture
Responding to the Papists’ Use of Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3
[3] Here, the question is: Did God so order it that the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles should not be contained in writing, but rather that it should be passed down through the living Word? The papists claim that the latter has been affirmed by God through Jeremiah, “I will set my law in their midst, and upon their heart I shall write it” (Jeremiah 31:33) and Paul, “You are Christ’s letter, delivered by us, inscribed not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on hearts of flesh” (2 Corinthians 3:3). But because the papists have made their credibility suspect before the church in many ways, we will, according to the command of Christ in John 5:39 and the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, search the Scriptures as to whether the Scriptures act in the way the papists claim. Behold! Right away we can grasp that the papal fables about the meaning of Jeremiah and Paul are not of the truth. The apostles have written several books about the doctrine of the New Testament. They certainly would not have done that if what God intended to say to Jeremiah is what the papists read into it. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews cites that very text of Jeremiah while he commits New Testament doctrine to writing (8:8–12). Paul had already written both epistles to the Thessalonians and the first epistle to the Corinthians when he said, “Not with ink, but with the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:3). Indeed, he himself was not handing down this saying through the living Word, but he wrote it down. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that Paul did not understand his remark in the way the papists have imagined, nor did the apostles understand the text of Jeremiah to mean that the doctrine of Christ and the apostles is incompatible with written form.
[6] It is therefore clear and certain that the text from Jeremiah neither has nor allows for the meaning that the papists have so earnestly contended. To be sure, Chrysostom in Homily 1 on Matthew wants to take the statement of Jeremiah to mean that for a few years the doctrine of Christ and the apostles was transmitted without writing—and we by no means dispute this.[1] But from this Chrysostom does not, like the papists, draw the conclusion that the nature and character of the New Testament is incompatible with written teaching, which is precisely the point we are disputing.
[10] What we have said about the statement of Jeremiah also applies to 2 Corinthians 3:3. For Paul does not deny that the evangelical doctrine is what he had written both at that time and previously with ink and by letter. He also does not say that because he had first converted the Corinthians through the living Word alone that what he now writes with ink is not the means of the Spirit to bring the Gospel into the hearts of believers. Rather, the passage concerns the fact that the Corinthians—who are already believing, obedient, and pious confessors—are a letter of Christ, not written externally with ink, but rather through the Spirit of the living God.
Before the Teaching of the New Testament was Committed to Writing
[11] We now proceed to the doctrine of the New Testament, as Christ and the apostles preached and proclaimed it. As you know, this doctrine was originally passed down unwritten by Christ and the apostles through the living Word but afterwards was committed to writing by the apostles.
[12] According to Andrada’s reckoning, the church went 20 years or so without a written Gospel.
[13] It would not be difficult for me to prove from Acts the date of the composition of the letters to the Thessalonians and thus to subtract from the calculation of Andrada. But we are not so concerned about the reckoning of a few years. We even add to Andrada’s total the time Jesus was teaching. If stated in this way, the church would have gone 20 years or so without a written Gospel, but what is that compared to the 2,454 years that the Old Testament church went without Scripture? Andrada is trying to deceive us with his ostentatious wordiness!
[15] It is a fallacy to say that because the church went without the written Gospel for 20 years that it would have been better if they had always remained without it.
[16] But if one asks why the Gospel was not immediately written in the first year, here the reason is even clearer than with the Old Testament. Before the doctrine of the Gospel was written down, it had to be demonstrated to the whole world against the perversions and contradictions of the Jews and Gentiles through the preaching of the apostles in wonders and signs and shown to be trustworthy through the approval of believing peoples in all the world. For we should be certain of this, the written message is not doubtful, unsure, or uncertain, but rather has reached full conviction, as Luke says (Luke 1:1), that is to say, confirmed by God through the apostles and shown to be completely trustworthy and certain by believers in all the world.
The Occasion, Purpose, Aim, and Intent of the Written New Testament
[17] The core of this entire issue consists in demonstrating what occasion, purpose, aim, and intent the evangelists and apostles had with the written form of the doctrine of the Gospel.
[18] To this end, we shall place first the marvelous statement of Irenaeus in his preface and first chapter of his third book (Against Heresies), which reads, “That alone is the true life-giving faith, which the church received from the apostles and passed on to her children. For the Lord of all gave His apostles the power of the Gospel, through which we come to know the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God. For we only hear of the order of salvation through those who have brought us the Gospel. At one time they preached it, but then, according to the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, which ought to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.”[2]
[19] Thus, we have in the Scriptures, which the apostles have delivered to us according to God’s will, the foundation and pillar of the one, true, life-giving faith, as the ancient church received it from the apostles. Later, Irenaeus says those who bestow no faith in Scripture were heretics. He describes the marks of a heretic thus: “If they are contradicted from Scripture, they denounce Scripture, as though it were incorrect and had no authority, as though it were ambiguous and could not be understood without knowing tradition.”[3] I should wonder if Pighius, Lindanus, and Andrada would not blush a little since they find themselves in this description.
[22] If the evangelist Matthew, as Andrada maintains—and here he follows the ancients and for good reason—wrote at the time when Paul preached at Rome, then he is the earliest among all the evangelists, but not the first among those who committed the apostolic doctrine to writing. I find in Acts 15:23–29 that the apostles and elders at the first renowned apostolic council after a careful examination of the situation agreed to write a letter to the Gentile churches.
[23] This is, therefore, the first origin of the divinely inspired Scriptures of the New Testament, as richly expressed in the statement, “It pleased the Holy Spirit and us.” As the Law went out from Zion as the first tradition of the living Word, so also did the first Scripture of the New Testament proceed out of Zion and come from Jerusalem.
[24] For this purpose it happened, so that the true and real judgment of the apostles could be fixed in writing for the church, so that no one, as it had happened before, would be able to raise up in the congregations a forged opinion as an allegedly apostolic tradition.[4] Therefore, this experience teaches that already in the first years of the apostolic preaching under such great traps of the devil, the wickedness of the world, and the presumption of the human mind the pure apostolic doctrine could not be maintained faithfully through tradition. Moreover, it shows that the apostolic traditions were feigned in order to taint the apostolic doctrine, since the apostles were not able to be present at all places with the living Word due to the spread of the church throughout various lands.[5]
[25] This also bears mentioning with this first apostolic writing, namely, that Jude and Silas were delegated as bearers of the very same message which had been put into writing. Why were the churches not content with the tradition of the living Word through Jude and Silas without this written authentication? Due to the danger of deceptive traditions was this reliable path considered necessary and useful. For in this way, Jude and Silas were able to complete the task entrusted to them by the apostles in such a way that they could demonstrate and authenticate in writing that what they brought was not an uncertain, forged, false tradition, but rather the true, authentic message. According to Luke who reports so much about these men, what they orally and extensively presented was in complete and exact agreement with the apostolic decree.
The First Article: The Writings of the Evangelists
Matthew
[2] It is unanimously attested that Matthew is the first of the four evangelists to have written. About the occasion and purpose of the composition, Eusebius states Matthew had written down what he preached to the Hebrews as a replacement for his personal proclamation (Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch 24).[6] Nicephorus argues similarly.
[3] There are other reasons as well: Due to the frailty of memory; to provide a brief, written summary of the faith for those who could not hear the apostles; and as a defense against erroneous doctrine and heretical adulteration.
Mark
[6] Mark wrote second. According to Eusebius, Mark wrote for the Romans who heard Peter and asked for this word of doctrine they heard to be committed to writing.[7] Pighius, however, in agreement with Rufinus, designates Mark’s dependency [upon Matthew] as a religious thievery. He does this to undermine the status of Scripture, going against the esteem of Peter, the very one who sought to bring this Gospel to ecclesiastical standing.
Luke
[7] Luke himself explicitly explained in his prologue that he orderly investigated everything which has become certain to faith, in order to provide a certain basis for doctrine, in contrast to arbitrary distortion and uncertain tradition.[8]
John
[10] It remains to speak of the fourth evangelist, namely, John.
[11] When John was banished to Patmos, the rest of the apostles had already died. Then Ebion and Cerinthus stirred up a strife about the divinity of Christ, thereby bringing wicked confusion into the churches.
[12] Without a doubt, God gave John such a long life after the death of the rest of the apostles so that with his apostolic vigilance over the church, he might serve as a shepherd for the church of all time, to protect her from feigned traditions and forged writings and to preserve for her the real, authentic apostolic teaching.
[13] Thus, John complemented the reports of the first three evangelists according to his knowledge and understanding, as the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary and sufficient for the whole future of the church. Because Ebion only recognized the Gospel of Matthew and imputed his own explanations to it under the pretext of traditions,[9] John wrote with outstanding care the speeches of Jesus and provided in them the key to their true interpretation.[10]
The Sufficiency of the Written Gospels
[14] Were then all the deeds and words of Jesus contained in writing after John wrote? By no means, for John himself says at the end of his Gospel, “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which, should all of them be written, one after the other, I suppose the world would not be able to contain the books that would have to be made” (John 21:25). Naturally, the papists immediately ask again, “Do we thus not have in the Gospels everything which is sufficient and necessary?” But hear now what John says, “But these things are written that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that you have life through faith in His name” (John 20:21).
[15] Those, therefore, who want to know still more about the doctrine of Christ beyond these writings are not intent on faith and salvation but upon unbelief and damnation. John tells us why the Holy Spirit did not allow every single thing to be written down: “The world would not contain it” (John 21:25). Augustine rightly says that this is not to be understood in terms of the amount of books or spatial considerations, but rather, the Holy Spirit took our weakness into account and selected what the faithful could comprehend spiritually in this life of weakness.[11]
[17] Augustine also comments on the words of Christ, “I still have much to say to you” (John 16:12): “Where the evangelists are silent, who among us would like to say, ‘this or that happened’; or how could one prove what he dares to say? Who is so vain or bold so as to make a claim, without divine testimony, what the Holy Spirit did not allow to be written, even if what they say is true?”[12]
[18] Another strange trick of Andrada’s should be remembered here. Against the Jesuits, I have cited the position of Augustine and Cyril that what the Holy Spirit viewed as sufficient for the salvation of believers in life and in death was selected to be written from the teaching and miracles of Jesus. To this, Andrada furrows his brow and sounds forth from the Tridentine chair as follows:
“The position [of Augustine] is not that the evangelists condensed all the holy things of our faith into a little book. Rather, they only put into writing as much as was necessary for the verification of all other unwritten reports.” This is bold indeed!
Cyril says, “Not all the deeds of the Lord are written down, but only those which the authors considered sufficient for faith and life.”[13] Andrada construes this to mean that Cyril does not affirm with these words that all the holy things of our faith are explained in Scripture, but rather only those things which are enough to authenticate all the holy teachings outside of Scripture. What kind of council must this have been from which such explanations could be issued?
[20] Augustine says, “What Christ would have us read from his words and deeds, that He allowed the evangelists to write, as his own hands.”[14] Thus, Christ did not desire that we should read from other authors something about his deeds and words which does not stand written in the evangelists. Therefore, what was written by those other than the evangelists Christ certainly did not command to be written, nor does He want them to be read. This we set against the papal fables and Roman abuses concerning indulgences, purgatory, Mass, the worship of images, the veneration of saints, the cult of the pope, and so on.
[21] Now we are not talking about the words and letters, but rather about the meaning. The meaning of what Paul quotes, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), is found in many of Jesus’ speeches. Irenaeus mentions that the four written Gospels were the standard, measure, and rule in the ancient church.[15] Against these Gospels was everything which anyone alleged about the words and deeds of Christ examined.[16] “What agreed with them, that is, the Gospels,” writes Irenaeus, “that was accepted. But what did not agree or contradicted them was rejected without reservation.”[17]
The Places of Composition of the Four Gospels
[22] The Gospel of St. Matthew originates from Jerusalem, the Gospel of Mark from Rome, the Gospel of Luke from Antioch, where Luke was a citizen. John’s Gospel is that which he preached in Ephesus. In this way, the four Gospels joyfully indicate the four main churches, Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Ephesus.
The Second Article: The Writings and Epistles of the Apostles
The Relationship between the Teaching of Christ and the Teaching of the Apostles
[1] Strictly speaking, there is essentially no difference between the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of the apostles. Because Christ gives the apostles the authority to preach the Gospel, only in this context Matthew 28 emphatically adds, “Teach them to keep everything which I have commanded you” (see also John 16:2; 2 Corinthians 5:20, 13:8). But here, as a matter of form, we understand the doctrine of Christ according to Luke’s explanation as it is written in Acts 1:1–2, “What Jesus began to do and teach until the day of His ascension.” Under the doctrine of the apostles, here we understand their preaching as it went out over the whole earth among the Jews and Gentiles after the ascension of Christ.
[2] This apostolic doctrine—which our opponents also concede—forms, together with the doctrine of Christ, the true, entire, and perfect doctrine of the Gospel.
Only That Which Was Necessary for Faith Was Written
Therefore, just as we showed earlier with the doctrine of Christ, thus we shall now also do with the doctrine of the apostles, that it was committed to writing in so far as the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary and sufficient for faith and life. Then Holy Scripture will clearly be seen as the canon, norm, rule, foundation, and pillar of our entire faith.
The Acts of the Apostles
[4] It is certain, however, that the apostles did not immediately write during the first years of their preaching. We are well aware of the original state of the apostolic church. We do not need to involve ourselves with difficult conjectures. Nor are we dependent upon murky traditions for knowledge of that time. We should not remain in the dark about this. Therefore, it pleased the Holy Spirit to establish in the church for all posterity a certain, reliable, and canonical writing about the original and truly ancient state of the apostolic church.
Indeed, Luke had written the Gospel account and therefore enjoyed the status of a trustworthy author in the church. The same one picked up the threads of his account in order to record the deeds of the apostles within a historical framework, in which he began with the earliest times of the apostolic preaching. This account contains rich material about what is sufficient and necessary to know concerning these things.
[5] Lindanus did not notice or did not want to see that in the Acts of the Apostles not only are the conversions of Jews and Gentiles to Christ recorded, but also the substance and form of apostolic doctrine are described precisely.
[6] We contend that many elements are present in papal doctrine which are not attested in Scripture. Therefore, it is precisely here that we maintain that elements have been falsely attributed to the apostles which have no trace in Acts or the writings of the apostles.
[7] To this they object that not all the actions of the individual apostles are recorded by Luke. This point was emphasized already at the end of the apostolic age. To complete Luke’s book of Acts, many writings which were recognized as spurious appeared. But such books, like the Journeys of Peter, which is falsely attributed to Clement, the Acts of Andrew, of Philip, of Peter, of Thomas, and of others, were rejected. Thus were the Acts of Paul and Thecla rejected by the apostle John.
The Harmony of Acts and the Apostolic Epistles
Moreover, additional material about what the apostles did was not collected and written down because of the prevalent notion that the book of Luke—together with the apostolic epistles—was sufficient for posterity.
In what concerns the state of the church in ministry, doctrine, and faith, the individual apostles did not have their own specific features. Rather, one singular faith prevailed, the same faith; the same exercise of the ministry existed, and the same evangelical order applied everywhere.
[8] One might respond that in Acts only the chief points are recorded, and that the true and necessary explanations are lacking. But those explanations are in the apostolic epistles. Therefore, nothing necessary concerning the apostolic doctrine can be missing in the New Testament.
[9] From what Nicephorus says concerning the epistles of Paul in bk. 2, ch. 34, it clearly follows that they were written for the following purpose:
That they would be:
- a brief compendium for the memory;
- a clear explanation of higher mysteries;
- a guide for future generations of hearers;
- a precise form of the articles of faith;
- a hint of deeper wisdom.
We shall especially contemplate how the apostolic epistles are a compendium for the memory and a clear explanation of the most important articles of faith.
[11] For this we wish to appeal to a few particularly illuminating witnesses from the apostolic epistles. For then we can hear from the words of the apostles themselves for what reason and purpose they committed the heavenly doctrine to writing.
First and Second Thessalonians
[12] The First Epistle to the Thessalonians appears to have been written first. The occasion is revealed from Acts 17 and the words of the epistle itself. In it, the apostle repeats the main points of the doctrine which he had formerly proclaimed orally. Thus, this epistle was intended to be a constant reminder and repetition of what was said earlier. The apostle indicates the second reason for his writing: he wants to complete what is lacking in the faith of his readers.
[13] The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written not much later. In his second chapter, we see another occasion for why the apostles expressed their doctrine in written form. There it reads: “that you would not be quickly shaken in mind nor disturbed, either by a spirit or a word or a letter that purports to have been sent by us,” etc.
The apostles thus began to commit their doctrine to writing lest it be polluted under the name of traditions and so that the church could be certain about the true, real doctrine of the apostles. Because the forged epistles were presented to the churches, Paul designates his real epistle with his own seal. Tertullian attests that the handwritten epistles of the apostles were preserved in their original manuscripts in the churches to which they were addressed (The Prescription against Heretics).[18]
[14] This we bring up as an objection to the papists. If already at the time of the apostles the pure doctrine could not be ensured in all places on account of false traditions, it is then obviously folly that in this last time, in which the Lord promised false prophecy, for us to try to search for the true and pure doctrine of the apostles in tradition. Truly we do better clinging to Scripture!
[15] Nevertheless, the papists find in this very epistle a principle to which they turn for the protection of their tradition against Scripture like the armor of Achilles, namely, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Hold on to the things which you were taught, either by us or by letter.” Thus, it is as clear as day, our opponents exclaim, that we owe the apostolic tradition the same reverence as Scripture. Among all the papists’ arguments against the complete sufficiency of Scripture, none are so brilliant as this one—this I admit. But what is established by the true apostolic traditions may not automatically be transferred to the papal notion of traditions.
[16] When the epistles to the Thessalonians were written, the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, in so far as it was worthy of memory, had not yet been completely written down. I am certainly willing to concede that. When Paul had first written an epistle, he said that the Thessalonians ought to hold fast to the traditions, not only from that one epistle, but also from the oral doctrine of the apostle, the content of which was not completely contained in that one epistle. Does it follow from this that now, after the completion of the canon, we owe the same reverence to papal traditions as we do to the Scriptures? That certainly does not follow from these words of Paul. It is simply completely different to speak of Scripture when only its first epistle is present than when it is finished. Thus, Paul himself speaks completely differently about Scripture at the end of his life in the Epistle to Timothy.
The First Epistle to Timothy
[18] Let us continue to the rest of Paul’s epistles. It seems that the next letter to be written is the First Epistle to Timothy. Paul himself attests to writing this epistle for the purpose of showing how the service of the Word should be conducted, so that the church would not be a den of robbers or an assembly of the wicked, but rather that it might be and remain the foundation and pillar of the truth. Because Timothy did not possess the status of an apostle, he himself needed to have a testimony that his preaching came from the apostolic tradition. For this reason, Paul expressed in writing what he had already entrusted to him orally about the office.
Paul also wrote this epistle so that after Timothy’s life we would have a testimony of the apostolic form of the office and of ecclesiastical conduct.
The Epistle to Titus
[21] Likewise is the nature of the epistle to Titus, which we discuss here because of its similar content, although it was not written until after the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Paul wanted his orders written down:
- So that Titus himself might be certain that his preaching was a faithful message, which he could and should maintain;
- So that the church might have a testimony that it was a faithful message which Titus so emphatically stressed.
The Epistles to the Corinthians
[23–24] The First Epistle to the Corinthians appears to have been written at Ephesus, thus not long after Paul departed from Corinth. Moreover, it was not composed solely for Corinth or only on account of an immediate crisis, for the apostle immediately turns at the beginning of the letter to all those who call on the name of Christ, wherever they might be.
[25] The one reason for the composition of this letter was this: It should, to recall Nicephorus, remind them of the clear preaching and tradition of the apostle, away from which a deviation had already taken place. It is surely remarkable how quickly the pure apostolic doctrine was distorted among the Corinthians.
[26] Furthermore, Paul wants to show in this epistle what ought to happen where the foundation has been laid. Without a doubt it should be built up, but with what? Some built with gold, others built with stubble. For even the latter appeared already in the days of the apostles. Paul indicates, therefore, how the apostles built with gold, silver, and precious stones, while wood, hay, and stubble was heaped up by others.
[27] Now a jester might well mock us here: “But not all the chief points of apostolic doctrine are contained in this epistle.” To this we simply must respond that we do not make it in such a way that we take up a single epistle of Paul and forget about all the other epistles. We compare all the other New Testament writings. We consider them together and only then affirm to possess in them what is necessary and sufficient.
[28] But one will hold against us that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, where he treats the Lord’s Supper, remarks, “I will give orders on the rest when I come.” The Jesuits maintain that afterwards Paul delivered the customs of the papal mass to the Corinthians orally. That is indeed an audacious conclusion which is just as easy to reject as it is to approve. The apostle states concerning that which he writes, “What I have given you I have received from the Lord.” He could therefore not have promised articles of faith concerning the Lord’s Supper which he had not received from the Lord. Since he did not want to write down his own personal instructions, who would like to say that this or that happened, or if one does venture to say it, how will it be proven?
[30] The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, written not long after the first, contains in 1:13, 10:11, and 13:2 the explicit witness to how the epistles of Paul are in accordance with the living words which he delivered in person. Thus, it states in 2 Corinthians 10:11, “How we are with words in the epistles when absent, thus we also ought to be in deed when we are present.” For these traditions of Paul, we have a devoted reverence.
The Epistle to the Romans
[31] Now we come to the Epistle to the Romans. Lindanus takes offense that our own find the way of Christian faith demonstrated in this epistle. But Paul himself says in 1:11–12 why he wrote the epistle, namely, “in order to strengthen you, that I may be comforted together with you through your faith and mine.” And in 15:14–15 he says that he was bold to write on account of the grace which was given to him, to be a minister of Christ among the Gentiles, so that the Gentiles might be an offering, pleasing to God, and sanctified through the Holy Spirit. Since he could not be present, he sought to do this through the epistle, namely, to strengthen faith. He also sought to leave something written behind in the event of his death about how he was a steward of the God’s Gospel among the Gentiles.
[32] We have, therefore, in the epistle of Paul, not only a bare enumeration of the doctrines that he preached orally, but also orderly explanations about the manner and order of the way he taught. For this reason, the Epistle to the Romans is rightly recommended by us, for it contains the way of faith, the core of the gospel, and the foundation of doctrine. It was written to the Romans because their faith was known everywhere, so that his confession might be made known more easily to all the churches.
[33] Lindanus wants to thwart our comfort through the phrase of Paul in Romans 15:15, “More boldly I have written to you in part,” as though the letter did not contain everything necessary. But the phrase “in part” refers not to the content but rather to the boldness of the writing (see also 2 Corinthians 2:5).
[34] These are the epistles of Paul written before his imprisonment. The sequence of the rest is difficult to determine. We list them, therefore, in their usual order.
The Epistle to the Galatians
The Epistle to the Galatians itself states its occasion. Without a precise summary of its contents, we notice that the pure doctrine was not preserved faithfully among the Galatians. Paul explains that the Gospel was perverted among them because they had blurred the distinction between Law and Gospel and the true meaning of both, and they did not safeguard accurately the pure doctrine concerning sin, works of the Law, justification, and regeneration. Here it is especially noteworthy that pure doctrine consists not only in the historical narrative and determination of Christ’s words and deeds along with the rest of the content of Scripture, but rather it rests especially on the true interpretation and appropriation of repentance, faith, justification, hope, and love.
[35–36] Paul leads the Galatians back to the Gospel which he had orally proclaimed to them previously and adds, “But even if we apostles or an angel from heaven were to preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let them be accursed.” Basil and Augustine rightly apply this passage to the entire Scripture. According to Galatians 5:4, we have in the Epistle to the Galatians the doctrine through which children of God are born and through which they are born anew when they fall, that Christ might take shape in them. In Galatians 6:16, the apostle wishes peace to all who live according to this rule or canon. From this, Scripture is called canonical. Thanks be to God that He has given us this canon in the Scriptures.
The Epistle to the Ephesians
[37] In Ephesians 3:3–4 stands a clear statement concerning the purpose, design, and use of Paul’s epistles. It says, “I have written briefly before, so that you may be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.”
[38, 40] In his farewell to the elders of Ephesus, the apostle says, “I have not held back from proclaiming the entire counsel of God to you” (Acts 20:27). Writing from prison in Rome, he repeats a short summary of this. But he says that he had written briefly. Though he had doubtlessly taught the Gospel in his three years at Ephesus, he remarks concerning that which he briefly wrote, “That you might understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.” What more could we want?
The Epistle to the Philippians
[41] The testimony of the Epistle to the Philippians concerning the agreement of written and oral apostolic doctrine is no small thing, “That I always write the same things to you does not bother me and makes me all the more certain” (Philippians 3:1). See also Philippians 4:9, “What you were taught and received and heard and saw in me.”
The Epistle to the Colossians
[42] The Colossians had learned the Gospel from Epaphras. But Paul writes to them so that they:
- Through his written verification could be convinced that what Epaphras had preached to them is the true evangelical doctrine;
- So that they would not be seduced through philosophy or through human decrees.
But the apostle does not write this epistle only for the Colossians, but rather desires that it would be read in the church of Laodicea, which had seen Paul face-to-face just as little as had been granted the Colossians. Therefore, to all of us, we who have not heard the living Word of Paul, are his epistles given, so that we may be strengthened in our faith.
The Epistle to the Hebrews
[43] The Epistle to the Hebrews contains the core of apostolic doctrine at two points, namely in the fifth and sixth chapters, where it shows us the chief points of apostolic instruction. But the chief content of the Epistle to the Hebrews concerns what is to be understood as the solid food of the mature (see 1 Corinthians 3 and 14).
The Second Epistle to Timothy
[44] Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy remains to be mentioned. In 1:13 it reads, “Uphold the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me.” The apostle calls faith and love the chief content of this pattern. He advises Timothy to preserve these and to remain in that which he was taught.
[46] At the end of his life, Paul wanted to offer a clear and excellent testimony concerning the entire Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
[47] In 2 Timothy 3:15 ff, Paul speaks not only about the Old Testament, but rather about the entire Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. He says that Timothy has known Holy Scripture from infancy. But when Timothy was a child, there were not yet any New Testament writings. Therefore, he is speaking of the Old Testament. But he quickly adds the other statement: “All Scripture is inspired by God” etc. Here I ask if this judgment refers only to the Old Testament. The one who thinks that the New Testament writings are excluded in this judgment must therefore maintain they are neither inspired nor useful for doctrine, but no one would likely think that.
[48] When Paul wrote this, most of the New Testament writings, with the exception of the Johannine material, already existed. Paul included what was present and thus declared the Scripture of the New Testament to be canonical.
[50] The meaning of Paul is evidently this: If a man of God, that is, a minister of the Gospel, rightly use the doctrine inspired by God for teaching, reproof, correction, and for discipline, then he is fit for his office, that is, sober, pure, capable, and fully equipped for every good work which is required for the ministry.
[52] But you interject that Paul not only commends the Scriptures to Timothy, but also the traditions. For he says in 2 Timothy 2:2, “That which you have heard from me, that you should command,” etc. The traditions of Paul are precisely the contents of the whole counsel of God (see Acts 20:27). For the same doctrine was delivered in oral preaching that was then committed to writing.
[53] Thus, at the end of his life, tradition and Scripture were equivalent to the apostle in the understanding that you couldn’t have one without the other. Moreover, in four parts the apostle shows the sufficiency of Scripture, namely in teaching, in reproof, in correction, and in discipline (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Epistles of Peter
[57] Peter emphasizes two reasons for his writing with very clear words:
- That the reader should always and everywhere in the future have and keep a reminder of the pure apostolic doctrine;
- Because after him false teachers would come.
The core of Scripture according to Peter is:
- The prophetic Word of the Old Testament;
- The evangelical proclamation of the apostolic eyewitnesses and hearers of Christ’s coming, majesty, and power;
- The orders that the apostles handed down.
[58] When Peter speaks of the obscurities in the epistles of Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16), he means that the subjects discussed, because they surpass reason, are incomprehensible to natural man, so that the illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary. He also directs this judgment to the rest of the Holy Scriptures, without thereby discouraging the reading of the Bible.
The First Epistle of John
[59] John writes in his first epistle as an eyewitness and hearer of the life which was from the beginning and has now appeared. He writes that the joy of the readers may be full. He shows believers in the present and in the future that Scripture with its message of salvation is given for those of every stage of life.
The Revelation of John
[60] In the Revelation of John, it is especially to be noted that John obtained several times the command from the Son of God to write what he heard and saw. How shameless is the Roman assertion on the contrary that the apostles were only given the command to preach by the Son of God and not the order to write!
The Epistle of Jude
[61] Concerning his epistle, Jude states that he had previously wanted to write about the general need for salvation, but now he had to turn to false teachers. The content of the epistle is therefore: The protection and defense of the doctrine handed down by the saints.
The Second and Third Epistles of John
[62] In the second and third Epistles of John it states, “I have much to write, but I do not want to with letter and ink. But I hope to see you soon, so that we may converse face to face.”
Lindanus twists this thus, as though the apostle had preferred oral proclamation to written presentation when it comes to the most important articles of faith. But it is an obvious lie to say that this should be in the text. For the true apostle John wrote completely differently in his first epistle, whose authenticity is firm. Now concerning the author of the two latter epistles, the ancients have always varied. Therefore, let the view of Jerome remain, received from the spirit of the ancients, that the testimony of the Apocrypha cannot and may not be used to settle disputes.[19]
[64] The apostles have therefore committed their teaching to writing:
- As a compendium for the memory;
- For a further elaboration of foundational doctrines;
- As a defense against confounding tradition;
- Because the doctrine could not otherwise be preserved faithfully;
- For the authentication of the disciples of the apostles;
- For the assurance of later churches;
- In agreement with oral instruction;
- For the elucidation and explanation of their doctrine;
- In order to give the rule of faith in writing;
- For a witness of the apostolic insight into the mystery of Christ;
- According to the capacity of the readers, just as they are in the weakness of this life;
- For a confirmation of their own earlier tradition;
- For a presentation of the first elements as well as of the complete doctrine;
- So that the use of the divinely inspired Scriptures may be shown to be effective for the equipping of every minister of the Word for all ministry of the office;
- As a guidepost of the faith for the post-apostolic age;
- So that a firm form of ecclesiastical conduct may be given;
- To be of use for every age of life, for every church, and for every occasion;
- For believers in the present and in the future;
- According to the command of the Son of God;
- In accordance with the origin of the Old Testament.
[1] “It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God hath made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for ‘He,’ saith our Lord, ‘shall bring all things to your remembrance.’ And that thou mayest learn that this was far better, hear what He saith by the Prophet: ‘I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,’ and, ‘they shall be all taught of God.’ And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law ‘not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.’ But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.” – John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Gospel of Matthew, NPNF1-10, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.iv.html
[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapters 1-2, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
[3] “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.” […] 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.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 2, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html
“The word ‘tradition’ in book III (Against Heresies) clearly means the secret Gnostic tradition not delivered by writing, but merely by means of the living voice, to which the Gnostics appeal when they are refuted from scripture, saying that this tradition is the necessary key without which scripture is not understandable.” – Ellen Flesseman–van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), pp. 101-102.
[4] “What the apostles had preached viva voce (orally), they had ‘handed down to us in the Scriptures as the pillar and bulwark of our faith.’ Not to assent to the content of these scriptures was to hold in contempt those who had communion with Christ the Lord…So it was that the terms apostolic, catholic, traditional, and orthodox became synonymous terms. The apostolic dogmas was a standard term for that which was believed, taught and confessed by the orthodox catholic church on the basis of the word of God.” – Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, (Chicago:University of Chicago, 1974), Vol. I, pp. 114, 120.
[5] “Papias differentiates between oral and written tradition to disparage the latter. This could no longer be safely said after the main Gnostic challenge had precipitated violent conflict over the nature of authentic Christianity. Marcion and Valentine arrived in Rome about 140; each claimed that his doctrine was the true faith and thereby denied the correctness or sufficiency of the doctrine being taught by the Roman clergy. It was good to be able to point in reply to the succession of occupants of the teaching chairs in which the martyred heroes St Peter and St Paul had once sat to instruct the Roman church. It was even better to be able to vindicate the proposition that the contemporary bishop and presbyters of Rome taught what the apostles had taught. It could be proved by written documents. The tradition was open to control in the words of scripture. The teaching of the apostles had providentially been put into writing, so that it was no matter of guesswork to ascertain its nature.” – The Church’s Use of the Bible, D.E. Nineham, Ed. (London: SPCK, 1963), Henry Chadwick, The Bible and the Greek Fathers, p. 32.
[6] “[O]f all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter XXIV, §5-6, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiv.html
[7] “And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter XV, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.vii.xvi.html
“This also the presbyter [John] said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” – Papias recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX, NPNF2-01, link: https://tinyurl.com/mspy58kk
[8] Luke 1:1-4 NKJV “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
[9] “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter XXVI, §2, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxvii.html
“So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XI, §7, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html
[10] “And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. […] They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter XXIV, §7, 11, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiv.html
[11] “We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? But perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaks, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature.” – Augustine of Hippo, Tractate 124 on John 21:19-25, §8, NPNF1-07, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm
[12] “Well, then, let us grant that it is so, that many can now bear those things when the Holy Spirit has been sent, which could not then, prior to His coming, be borne by the disciples: do we on that account know what it is that He would not say, as we should know it were we reading or hearing it as uttered by Himself? For it is one thing to know whether we or you could bear it; but quite another to know what it is, whether able to be borne or not. But when He Himself was silent about such things, which of us could say, It is this or that? Or if he venture to say it, how will he prove it? For who could manifest such vanity or recklessness as when saying what he pleased to whom he pleased, even though true, to affirm without any divine authority that it was the very thing which the Lord on that occasion refused to utter? Which of us could do such a thing without incurring the severest charge of rashness,—a thing which gets no countenance from prophetic or apostolic authority? For surely if we had read any such thing in the books confirmed by canonical authority, which were written after our Lord’s ascension, it would not have been enough to have read such a statement, had we not also read in the same place that this was actually one of those things which the Lord was then unwilling to tell His disciples, because they were unable to bear them.” – Augustine of Hippo, Tractate XCVI on John 16:12-13, Chapter XVI, §2, NPNF1-07, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107/npnf107.iii.xcvii.html
[13] “He [i.e. John the Evangelist] sums up the book in a manner, and makes plain to His hearers the object of the preaching of the Gospel. For, he says, this book was composed that ye may believe, and believing might have eternal life. He says that the signs were many, and does not limit the actions and marvellous works of our Saviour to those which were accurately known by him personally, and recorded by him, and leaves the other disciples to publish, if they chose, whatever was vividly impressed on their memory. For all the signs, he says, are not written in this book, but those only have been inserted by me which I thought best able to convince my hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” – Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 20:30-31, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885), Book 12, Vol. 2, link: https://tinyurl.com/5n6hj3sd
“Very great, then, says the Apostle, will the number of the miracles that God hath wrought, and altogether without number will the list of His deeds be seen to be, and out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. […] We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to every one to observe, that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Saviour. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability, and such that their hearers could best be confirmed by them in incorruptible faith, and receive instruction in morality and doctrine; so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith, and glorified by manifold works that make for righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above, and being joined unto the Church of the firstborn in the faith, might at length attain unto the Kingdom of Heaven in Christ.” – Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 21:25, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885), Book 12, Vol. 2, link: https://tinyurl.com/5n6hj3sd
[14] Chemnitz appears to be paraphrasing the following passage: “In the entire number of those divine records which are contained in the sacred writings, the gospel deservedly stands pre-eminent. For what the law and the prophets aforetime announced as destined to come to pass, is exhibited in the gospel in its realization and fulfilment. The first preachers of this gospel were the apostles, who beheld our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in person when He was yet present in the flesh. And not only did these men keep in remembrance the words heard from His lips, and the deeds wrought by Him beneath their eyes; but they were also careful, when the duty of preaching the gospel was laid upon them, to make mankind acquainted with those divine and memorable occurrences which took place at a period antecedent to the formation of their own connection with Him in the way of discipleship, which belonged also to the time of His nativity, His infancy, or His youth, and with regard to which they were able to institute exact inquiry and to obtain information, either at His own hand or at the hands of His parents or other parties, on the ground of the most reliable intimations and the most trustworthy testimonies. Certain of them also — namely, Matthew and John — gave to the world, in their respective books, a written account of all those matters which it seemed needful to commit to writing concerning Him.” – Augustine of Hippo, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book I, §1, NPNF1-06, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602101.htm
[15] “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the ‘pillar and ground’ of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XI, §8, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html
[16] “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, 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. 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.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapters 1-2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
[17] Chemnitz appears to be paraphrasing this passage from Irenaeus: “So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. […] These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean,] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. […] But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XI, §1, 9, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html
[18] “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XXXVI, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/heretics/anf03.v.iii.xxxvi.html
[19] Chemnitz calls “Apocrypha” that which is now more commonly called antilegomena (though this term goes back to at least the early fourth century A.D.). Thus, Chemnitz is not talking about apocryphal gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas. There is a distinction within the New Testament canon between books that are homologoumena and antilegomena. Homologoumena refers to books that are “universally recognized,” whereas antilegomena refers to books that were “disputed,” that is, there were some doubts about these books in the early church. There are seven books considered antilegomena: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
