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/)
Examination
The Papal Use of Tradition
[1] This papist commonplace extends the furthest. It encompasses all papal doctrines and customs which are unbiblical. It is the actual Pandora’s box for all the church’s ruin in both error and superstition.
[3] The word “tradition” is not always used by the ancients with the same meaning. The traditions about which they speak are not all alike. The papists deceptively mix these testimonies together and paint all traditions with a single color, in order to adorn themselves with the appearance of antiquity. We must, therefore, analyze the entire substance of tradition in sections and assign them to particular classes.
[4] In the process, it must always be emphasized what is actually crucial in our dispute with the papists on the question of tradition. The papists argue that since all the articles of faith and moral teachings are not contained in Scripture, these articles and teachings are to be created from unwritten tradition; thus, they are to be believed without a scriptural justification, beyond and next to Scripture.
2:1: Traditions of the First Class
The Traditions of Christ and the Apostles
[1] The oral teaching of Christ and the apostles, which were subsequently written down by the evangelists and apostles is frequently called tradition. This is what it means to Cyprian[1] and Basil[2] when considering the original form of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But this tradition exists in writing.
[2] Let the reader note how sincerely the papists here proceed. Wherever they find the word “tradition,” they instantly twist it according to their traditions. Thus, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:1, “I remind you of the Gospel that I preached to you.” Here they instantly yell, “Are you listening? Here is tradition!” I am indeed listening, but I read right away in the same passage that Paul explains this tradition with Scripture. In verses 3 and 4 of that chapter, he recalls his proclamation that Christ died for our sins according to Scripture and that he was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. You thus hear how Paul’s tradition is in a twofold sense “scriptural” in as much as it is taken from the Old Testament Scripture and then committed to writing by Paul himself.
[4] We have a marvelous testimony from Irenaeus about Polycarp (Eusebius bk. 4, ch. 14).[3] His doctrine was nothing other than that which was received from the apostles and preached by the church. Through the purity of his apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine, he returned many heretics to God’s church. The papists, however, take this to mean that in his preaching of apostolic doctrine Polycarp made use of many apostolic instructions which are not found in Scripture. Nevertheless, the credibility of the papists is suspect for several reasons.
Irenaeus says Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians (in Eusebius, bk. 4, ch. 14) is written in such a way that the character of faith and the true doctrine can be recognized in it.[4] In fact, the epistle gives no papal traditions, but rather shows us Christ, the incarnate and crucified one, as our righteousness and our life, and treats the resurrection, the judgment, faith, love, hope, good works, patience towards the weak, prayer, and other biblical lessons.
[5] Irenaeus also writes (in Eusebius bk. 5, ch. 20) that he preserved in his heart the things which Polycarp reported about his interaction with the apostles who have seen the Lord.[5] And this report—so sound the golden words—agrees in all parts with Scripture.
2:2: Traditions of the Second Class
The Transmission of Scripture in the Church
[1] The preservation of Holy Scripture by the faithful hands of church shows us the second kind of tradition.
[2] We honor this tradition, for the church confesses itself to be bound to this biblical teaching and urges posterity to also bind itself to Scripture. Augustine tells us how he came to faith. He obeyed the call of the Catholics: “Believe the Gospel!” In this context is his often-quoted statement, “I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the catholic church did not prompt me.”[6] But once he had come to faith, in no way does he say he believes the church more than the Gospel. Rather, because he trusted the Gospel, he could not trust Mani.
[3] The papists then say, “If you accept the testimony of the church concerning Scripture, what right do you have to reject the testimony of the papal church concerning the rest of the traditions?” But we answer: There is a tremendous difference between the testimony concerning the Bible since the time of the ancient apostolic church and the lies which the papists issue and impose upon us as apostolic tradition.
From the testimonies of the ancient church the fathers bring the proof for such tradition concerning Holy Scripture as often as they talk about it. In so doing, the church shows us the Scripture it commends simultaneously as both the touchstone and the measure of true and false tradition. What agrees with Scripture is to be accepted; what does not agree is to be rejected.
[4] Christ and the apostles indeed accepted the testimony of the Pharisees concerning the Old Testament canon, but they by no means bound themselves to the articles of the elders. Therefore, we examine all other traditions according to Scripture.
2:3: Traditions of the Third Class
The Patristic Appeal to Apostolic Tradition
[1] With lofty words Tertullian and Irenaeus celebrate the apostolic tradition. According to Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 4), “From the time of the apostles the church has had in rich abundance, as it were, the entire tradition of truth. If the apostles had left us no writings, then we would have had to adhere to the order of tradition which they entrusted to the overseers of the churches. Many Gentile peoples do this, who have the doctrine of salvation written and preserved in their hearts through the Spirit without ink and letter.”[7] Thus far Irenaeus.
Similarly, Tertullian writes, “Christ had them preach, and only the message of the messengers holds validity, as it went out orally in part, and partly in writing, which needed the authentication of the churches founded by the apostles. Therefore, the doctrine which agrees with the apostolic mother churches in the earliest church is to be recognized as true. Any doctrine which is contrary to this truth must be a lie.” (See Tertullian’s The Prescription Against Heretics).[8]
[3] These great encomia on tradition seem to speak in favor of the papal position. Moreover, a short dictum of Tertullian’s on this view stands as a papal sign of victory in all the Roman writings. It reads, “On should not appeal to Scripture in disputes; for the victory therein is uncertain.”[9]
[4] Nevertheless, our conception of Scripture is not refuted by these discussions of Irenaeus and Tertullian, but rather confirmed when their remarks are taken in context. Do Irenaeus and Tertullian intend, for example, to establish articles of faith which are not attested in Scripture? Both quote articles of faith which are summarized almost verbatim in the Apostles’ Creed. So, it is as clear as day that the sum of all of Scripture is most excellently present in these articles.
[6] Why do Irenaeus and Tertullian nevertheless appeal to tradition and not to Scripture? Because the heretics saw that the church’s faith stood in Scripture, with their own error being outside of Scripture; they therefore rejected Scripture or lamented that it was insufficient (see Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 1).[10] The heretics either did not accept Scripture at all or did not accept it entirely. They complained that Scripture was so ambiguous and obscure that one could not find in it the truth. Therefore, Tertullian states that one should not refer to Scripture nor direct a dispute towards it. For in so doing, he means, there would be not victory, or only an uncertain one, against such heretics.
[7] The heretics tried to place Scripture in the wrong in relation to tradition through these alleged proofs:
1. The canon of Scripture is not the true one; thus it is not completely valid;
2. Given its ambiguity the truth cannot be discerned from Scripture;
3. At the very least one cannot reach it from Scripture alone, but only with the aid of tradition.
Thus, Irenaeus and Tertullian direct the heretics to tradition, namely, to the true apostolic tradition. Irenaeus rightly said at that time: “If no Holy Scriptures were left behind from the apostles, then the true apostolic doctrine could nevertheless be recognized in the apostolic tradition that has been genuinely preserved in the church up to this point.”[11]
[8] Now this question is important: What did Irenaeus and Tertullian attempt to prove from this tradition, which at this time was not completely uniform in all the apostolic churches? It is certain—even the papists concede this—that these two teachers of the church did not try to advance any teaching from tradition that was contrary to Scripture. For the heretical traditions were rejected by them because they contradicted Scripture.
[9] Both of these teachers of the church explicitly identify the subject that they want to demonstrate from tradition, namely, the articles of faith which are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. Without a doubt these articles of faith are passed down in Scripture through many clear testimonies. Therefore, these two teachers of the church only seek to expound and prove scriptural articles of faith from tradition.
[10] Irenaeus describes in his work (bk. 4, ch. 63)[12] how the ancient condition of the church and apostolic doctrine have been kept unadulterated through the diligent use of Scripture and its regular, careful interpretation up until his day. Tertullian says of the heretics: “They believe, without consulting Scripture, so that their faith can contradict Scripture.”[13]
Tertullian states the same in other places as well. For example, he highlights with praise the fact that the church of Rome at his time gathered together the Law and the Prophets with the Gospel and the apostolic doctrine and takes her rule of faith from Scripture. Now concerning Scripture Tertullian writes, “What we are, it is that. We come from it.”[14] From this it follows that the ancient condition and tradition of the church, according to Tertullian, accord with Scripture’s doctrine. According to him, Scripture and tradition can therefore be used with the same value.
[12] Thus, all the traditions which were claimed to be apostolic were in accordance with Scripture. Such traditions are therefore still in accordance with Scripture today and must be so. We know the ancient apostolic traditions accurately from the rules of faith which are specifically quoted by Irenaeus and Tertullian. For example, see Irenaeus bk. 1, ch. 2;[15] bk. 3, ch. 4;[16] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics.[17]
2:4: Traditions of the Fourth Class
The Ancient Tradition of Biblical Interpretation
[1] The fourth kind of traditions concerns the interpretation of Scripture or the true sense and original foundational concepts in Scripture. As is well known, Irenaeus and Tertullian had to fight the heretics not only about Scripture in general, but also about the way of interpretation and the true meaning of Scripture.
[2] In bk. 2, ch. 46–47, Irenaeus gives a few rules for interpreting Scripture, thereby expressing the real apostolic tradition. He first says that the sound and certain meaning of Scripture is the one which is evidently and clearly stated according to the very words in Scripture. His second principle is this: “Parables and allegories are not to be interpreted in a way that is contrary to this clear meaning of Scripture.”[18] Irenaeus’s third principle reads: “Interpretation must agree with the entire doctrinal content of Scripture.”[19] Fourth, “Some elements of Scripture are obscure. Some of its mysteries we will not be able to solve in the weakness of this life. These obscurities must not rob us of the consolation of proper faith which the clear words of the Bible reveal to us.”[20]
If we follow these principles, Irenaeus says, then we will preserve faith. Then Scripture shall be to us as a harmonious whole, and we shall hear the same mellifluous sound from all the Bible’s words.
[3] From this it follows that the ancient church’s customary conception of Scripture did not draw anyone away from Scripture.
[5] We adhere to these ancient, genuine, and true apostolic traditions and we treasure them highly. For we confess all the writings of the prophets and apostles, in their original meaning, as expressed in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
[6] We likewise profess the views of Irenaeus and Tertullian, derived from apostolic tradition, concerning the proper interpretation and the sound meaning of Scripture. For this reason, we cannot be reproached for neglecting or despising the genuine ancient apostolic traditions of scriptural interpretation.
Rather, we disapprove that the papists wish to force upon us their unbiblical interpretation of the Bible derived from the power of their supreme authority. As we said, we are not able to catch sight of the apostolic tradition herein.
2:5: Traditions of the Fifth Class
Traditions Properly Deduced from Scripture
[1] Gregory Nazianzus rightly says that some things are explicitly stated and contained in Scripture, whereas other things are contained in Scripture without being stated explicitly.[21] The latter is, for example, the case with the teaching: “The Father is unbegotten.” Though this doctrine is not found in Scripture with the exact same wording, it can, however, be deduced from Scripture. In the same sense Origen states in bk. 5 on Romans, “The church receives from the apostles the tradition to also baptize infants.”[22]
[2] Certainly it is not explicitly taught in Scripture: “Infants are to be baptized. The apostles baptized infants.” But wherever the fathers speak of baptizing children as a tradition, they seek to do so from certain and clear passages of Scripture.
[3] Lindanus, however, mocks us, as if we had hereby taken an article of faith from tradition without the testimony of Scripture. I desire, therefore, to cite a few testimonies from the ancients to show how much they endeavor to demonstrate scriptural reasons for baptizing infants. Thus, Augustine gives circumcision as a proof for the right of baptizing infants.[23] Similarly, Origen mentions the natural sinfulness of infants. Irenaeus stresses the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ.[24] Cyprian argues on the basis of the seriousness of the divine will for salvation.[25] Ambrose and Augustine emphasize the necessity of rebirth.
[4] Let the reader see from this what it means when the ancients spoke of infant Baptism as a tradition, since they substantiate and secure it with many strong and firm scriptural testimonies.
The apostles received the command to Baptism for all people. It is written that entire houses were baptized by them. Doubtlessly there were also infants included therein whom Christ called to Himself.
[5] Our wanton opponents sneeringly refer us to the passages in Augustine where, in reference to infant Baptism, he appeals to the unwritten apostolic custom in the church.[26] But whoever is more familiar with Augustine also knows how he justifies infant Baptism. Against the Donatists (On Baptism, Against the Donatists e.g. bk. 2, ch. 14;[27] bk. 4, ch. 7;[28] bk. 5, ch. 26[29]) he appeals precisely not to the ecclesiastical custom, but rather to the testimony of Holy Scripture.[30] From Scripture he does not evidence an actual example, but rather the fundamental right of infant Baptism. Much rests in the fact that the ecclesiastical custom agrees with the testimony of Scripture. This is what the issue is between us and Rome.
[7] To this fifth class of traditions also belong many debates of the ancients about the doctrines of the faith which have the firm basis of Scripture without being expressed in it syllable for syllable. Such an example is the doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. Against this, the Arians maintained that the Son’s equality with the Father is not written in Scripture. But again, Athanasius did not state that the wording is biblical, but that its sense is scriptural.[31]
[8] Gregory of Nazianzus was not wrong to say (Fifth Theological Oration) that sticking to the syllables is a guise for a lack of conscience.[32]
2:6: Traditions of the Sixth Class
The Proper Reverence for the Fathers after Scripture
[1] Here we treat the collective consensus of the fathers. This formula is certainly well known: “The fathers have handed down this or that.” Andrada falsely cries that we do not honor antiquity. That is not the case. Of course, for us the study of Scripture is first. But after that, we have our daily joy in the harmony of that truth-loving and pure past.
[2] The view of our party is that the Word of God itself is the arbiter in questions of religion, and the testimony of the true church joins in secondarily. For there are always some pious to whom the Word of God falls. Through their confession they strengthened those who were yet weaker. For example, Polycarp and Irenaeus brought to the younger generation the knowledge that the “Word” (logos) in the beginning of the first chapter of John’s gospel is to be understood as a person. Therefore, the church, according to Melanchthon, is to be heard as a teacher. But according to him, faith and prayer is based on God’s Word, not the authority of men.
[3] Basil says well in the homily against the Sabellians, “Do not be anxious to hear that which pleases you, but rather what pleases God, what is scriptural, and also what does not contradict the fathers.”[33]
[4] We also openly disagree with those such as Servetus who establish opinions for which there is not any testimony available at any time from the church.
[5] We do not, however, search the fathers because Holy Scripture is not sufficient for us. On the contrary, we do it based on something Augustine clearly stated from time to time, namely, to show how faithfully this or that doctrine was preserved and employed against error, lest one dare to refute it as seemingly false.[34]
[6] Thus, Augustine states, “Cyprian’s letters are not my canon. Rather, I test them against the canon. What agrees with it, I gratefully accept. But that which does not agree, I will gladly let go” (Contra Cresconium).[35]
[7] Julian rejects what Chrysostom had expressed, “Infants do not have sin.”[36] Augustine says, “Take it to mean ‘No actual sins.’”[37] Then there is no dispute. Now Julian asks, “Why did Chrysostom himself not need to add ‘actual?’” Certainly because he believed he would be understood properly in the catholic church. Consequently, the difficult passages of the fathers are to be understood from the context of the doctrine of faith. It occasionally happened to the fathers that if they wanted to refute something erroneous, they needed strong expressions and so fell into the opposite error, as happened, for example, with Dionysius of Alexandria, or inaccuracies have slipped out of the fathers in the flow of their speech. Also, they were sometimes milder towards customs of their time, even where they recognized them as corrupt.
Cyprian certainly reminds us: “We ought not to follow human custom, but rather divine truth.”[38] Therefore, whereas the leniency of the fathers was not well received, they also openly condemned what was contrary to Scripture.
For this reason, Augustine rebukes those Donatists who glossed over the errors of the fathers, stating that it would be like someone wanting to imitate Peter in his denial.[39] Those who say they would rather err with the fathers than attain what is right with others ought to take this to heart. We state that the fathers would have corrected many things if they would have been reminded.
We have seen how the fathers have taken a free stance on the writings of other fathers. The papists demand from us that we agree with the arbitrary passages from the fathers that they quote against Scripture without hesitation. Moreover, sometimes they quote the passages of the fathers in a completely distorted fashion.
2:7: Traditions of the Seventh Class
Traditions of Rites and Customs
[1] Under the traditions of the seventh class we understand the following: When the ancients speak of unwritten traditions, they do not actually mean articles of faith which are to be considered detached from Scripture, rather they are referring to ancient customs and rites which they trace back to the apostles because of their age. Included here are crossing oneself, praying in an eastward direction, baptismal customs such as the threefold immersion, renunciation, the confession of the creed, the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, etc. If the union between us and Rome could be established concerning doctrine, then the understanding concerning ceremonies would be more easily achievable. That the apostles established some external provisions for the churches is certainly clear from Scripture. Though it cannot be determined with certainty, the apostolic origin of some other customs is also probable.
[2] We do have some firm apostolic perspectives, rules, and methods for assessing all the customs which have been passed down to us.
- Such customs are in accordance with Scripture which contain the implementation and elucidation of the teaching of Scripture, e.g., the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the arrangement of the rite of Baptism, etc.
- Paul gives this characteristic to all apostolic customs: whatever is edifying, orderly, and honorable (1 Corinthians 14:26, 40).
- According to apostolic customs, Christian freedom governs the use of outward forms, so that the utilization of outward forms can be directed, changed, and abolished toward edification according to place, time, person, etc. Doctrine is universally valid for all times, whereas customs are permitted to be freely changed according to the status of the circumstances.
[4] This indeed is the apostolic perspective towards the evaluation of such traditions.
[5] We therefore do not simply reject all traditions of this sort. For what is not against faith or morals, we, with Augustine, consider indifferent, according to this apostolic perspective. Augustine also supports the removal of such customs which, by their multiplicity and appearance of force, exert pressure upon the churches, even when their incompatibility with faith is difficult to prove.
2:8: Traditions of the Eighth Class
Traditions without Scriptural Testimony
[2] Now we enter upon uniquely papal ground. It has to do with such traditions of faith and morals which lack any scriptural testimony. Nevertheless, the Tridentine Council wants these traditions to be honored just as much as Holy Scripture.
[3] Or does the council perhaps mean scriptural traditions? Certainly not. Soto puts down the following rule as infallible and catholic: “The Roman Catholic faith, in so far as it is not contained in Scripture, rests upon apostolic tradition. If the originator of an ecclesiastic custom is unknown, then it doubtlessly originates from the apostles.” Among such traditions he reckons the Roman sacramental administration, the invocation of the saints, good works, papal primacy, and prayers for the dead. In addition, countless other things are derived, such as priestly celibacy, dietary prohibitions, purgatory, and also indulgences, the cult of images, the legends of the saints, and so on.
[5] First, contemplate how dangerous it is for the church and how pernicious it is for faith if unbiblical statutes of man are elevated as tradition just as much as the biblically attested doctrine. For this reason, Paul warned the Thessalonians and Colossians not to be caught up in futile deception and performances of traditions. Similar warnings are found in Irenaeus,[40] Tertullian,[41] and Athanasius.[42]
[6] Second, consider how even excellent men of the church have fallen into snares when they ascribed too much to unwritten traditions. This applies, for example, to the bishop Papias (2nd century), who naively followed the traces of unwritten tradition in oral inquiry into the fates of the individual disciples, but accepted false teachings and fictitious parables as true, even blundering into the view of a thousand-year reign. Therefore, Eusebius remarks concerning this Papias that he misunderstood the apostolic traditions and did not consider them fairly as he did not possess good judgment.[43] The errors of Clement of Alexandria also stem from the fact that he overvalued traditions.
[7] Third, it should be noted that with some of the ancients many passages from apocryphal or pseudepigraphal writings are quoted as though they were genuine traditions. Thus, Epiphanius calls fasting with bread and water a tradition,[44] but it is first found in The Shepherd of Hermas, similitude 5.[45] Likewise, that Enoch and Elijah will return before the last day to fight with the antichrist has been designated as an ancient tradition. It is taken, however, from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus.
[8] Fourth, it is noteworthy that the fathers have attributed apostolic origin to quite a few ancient customs of uncertain age in order to give them more authority. This is known from the disputes about the dating of Easter, as the Romans traced their custom back to Peter and Paul, whereas the Asians ascribed their practice to John.[46] One can see from this how quickly confusion arose in the church through the allusion of tradition. Tertullian mentions how many contrivances were defended without a scriptural basis, first under the name of traditions, then later under the protection of custom. All such contrivances the papists consider apostolic. But Tertullian does not say this, rather, in his own words, “Whoever their originator may have been.”
[9] Fifth, one needs to consider how many of the moral rules of the Montanists have crept in through the teaching of tradition. Thus, the papal teaching of the celibacy of the spiritual is a piece of rigid strict morality from Montanistic moral teaching. Tertullian’s writing on fasting is enlightening in this respect. From this we see that the church in the beginning, when she still looked through the perfect law of freedom, seriously condemned and rejected the Montanistic custom of fasting. Only later under the coaxing spell of hypocrisy did this tradition become established in the church with the quiet force of habit. One then unjustly handed a name over to it and spoke of an apostolic tradition.
[10] Sixth, we need to take into consideration that the papists are not able to bring forward from the authentic writings of the ancients any testimonies for their many traditions. For this reason, they invent apocryphal, pseudepigraphal, and spurious writings, or pretend they are the works of the ancients when it is a lie. Thus, there are forged letters allegedly of the most ancient popes. The books ascribed to Clement of Rome, with the exception of the Epistle to the Corinthians, were already recognized as false in the days of Eusebius. This is also the case with the newest invention of this kind, the allegedly ancient “Descriptions of the Life of the Apostles,” which was falsely attributed to Abdias of Babylonia. These descriptions are preserved in an entirely medieval monastic tone.
The letters of Ignatius provide a rich harvest. To be sure, the ancient bishop and martyr Ignatius really did write letters. Under the name of Ignatius letters have come down to us partially in Latin and partially in Greek. Though containing many good things, as they are now available to us, in several places they seem to have been reformulated in favor of papal hierarchy. In any case, even when they were still genuine, Jerome did not accord the letters of Ignatius’s letters any canonical status.
[11] Finally, the papists do not shy away from tracing catholic customs back to the apostles, even where we are able to prove that these customs originate from papal authors. This is the case, for example, with the so-called canon of the Mass. As history shows, the popes have worked on this for approximately 600 years. Therefore, we cannot speak of an apostolic origin of this canon of the Mass. Moreover, in Augustine’s days the opinion about purgatory was unsure and uncertain; now it is stamped as an unassailable apostolic tradition.
[12] In short, our view is as follows: We do not reject traditions which are from and according to Scripture. But we are dealing especially with those traditions which cannot be authenticated with any kind of scriptural testimony. Here it is insufficient to reassure us by saying, “This is apostolic tradition,” for this phrase is a snare. The wicked ones have thereby placed a trap which has caught some otherwise good ones. We have proven and confirmed this many times.
[13] We have seen that unbiblical traditions do not actually concern articles of faith but rather forms and customs. Perhaps Andrada will ask whether we reject the ceremonies altogether. Without developing a complete response to the question of the so-called indifferent things or adiaphora, we reply in short, “We allow the scriptural customs to stand; we reject the unbiblical ones.”
Faith is not bound to form. Faith is free, and it is also considerate to avoid causing offense, as it must bear with those who are weak in faith.
But our opponents are not content with our judicious and scriptural standpoints. When they can do nothing else, they appeal to the antiquity and long existence of custom. We respond from their own law: “Custom, if it does not rest upon the truth, is only an error from ancient time.”
NOTES:
[1] “He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.'” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII, § 2, ANF, Vol. 5, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiii.html
“Cyprian to Cæcilius his brother, greeting. Although I know, dearest brother, that very many of the bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; yet since some, either by ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught, I have thought it as well a religious as a necessary thing to write to you this letter, that, if any one is still kept in this error, he may behold the light of truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord. ” – Cyprian, Epistle LXII, §1, ANF, Vol. 5, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.html
[2] “Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil1 itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.” – Basil, On the Holy Spirit, NPNF2-08, Chapter XXVII, §66, NPNF2-08, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html
“In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil that dogmata were delivered or handed down by the Apostles, en musterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as “in secret.” The only accurate rendering is: “by the way of mysteries,” that is—under the form of rites and (liturgical) usages, or “habits.” In fact, it is precisely what St. Basil says himself: ta pleista ton mustikon agraphos hemin empoliteuetai. [Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way]. The term ta mustika refers here, obviously to the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of “Apostolic” origin. . . . Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature.” – Georges Florovsky (Eastern Orthodox Theologian), Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, (Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), pg. 86–87.
“St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as disciplina arcani. [The discipline of secrecy]. In the fourth century this “discipline” was in wide use, was formally imposed and advocated in the Church. It was related to the institution of the Catechumenate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose. On the other hand, as St. Basil says himself, certain “traditions” had to be kept “unwritten” in order to prevent profanation at the hands of the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and usages. It may be recalled at this point that, in the practice of the Fourth century, the Creed (and also the Dominical Prayer) were a part of this “discipline of secrecy” and could not be disclosed to the noninitiated. The Creed was reserved for the candidates for Baptism, at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated, or “traditioned,” to them by the bishop orally and they had to recite it by memory before him. . . . The Catechumens were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had to be inscribed in their hearts.” – Georges Florovsky (Eastern Orthodox Theologian), Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, (Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), pg. 87–88.
[3] “At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast. And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenæus’ work Against Heresies, and is as follows: ‘But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church.’” – Eusebius, Church History, Book IV, Chapter XIV, §1-5, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xiv.html
[4] “‘There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those that wish to do so, and that are concerned for their own salvation, may learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth.’ Such is the account of Irenæus.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book IV, Chapter XIV, §8, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xiv.html
[5] “In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenæus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying: ‘These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee. For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words.’” – Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter XX, §4-7, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xiv.html
[6] “Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus.” – Augustine of Hippo, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental (Contra Epistolam Manichæi Quam Vocant Fundamentum), Chapter 5, §6, NPNF1-04, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html#fnf_iv.viii.vi-p2.1
[7] “Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God…” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IV, §1, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.v.html
[8] Chemnitz does not seem to be providing a word-for-word quote here, but instead appears to be paraphrasing and summarizing Tertullian’s argument from Prescription Against Heresies, particularly chapters 26 and 32. Here is a quote from Tertullian which closely resembles a lot of what Chemnitz says here: “Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, “whatsoever they had heard in darkness” and in secret, they should “declare in the light and on the house-tops.” He had Himself foreshown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually “pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick,” in order to “give light to all who are in the house.” These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,—neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence; with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they “set forth in order” that which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends [domesticos], so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;” so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XXVI, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm
[9] “Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XIX, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xix.html
[10] “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. […] These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.” – 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
[11] “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IV, §1, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.v.html
[12] Chemnitz cited the correct book but the wrong chapter. Here is the quote: “True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXIII, §8, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iv/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html
[13] “But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures.” – Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XXIII, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxiii.html
“You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator’s angels have been changed into human form, and have even borne about so veritable a body…Has it, then, been permitted to angels, which are inferior to God, after they have been changed into human bodily form, nevertheless to remain angels? and will you deprive God, their superior, of this faculty, as if Christ could not continue to be God, after His real assumption of the nature of man? Or else, did those angels appear as phantoms of flesh? You will not, however, have the courage to say this; for if it be so held in your belief, that the Creator’s angels are in the same condition as Christ, then Christ will belong to the same God as those angels do, who are like Christ in their condition. If you had not purposely rejected in some instances, and corrupted in others, the Scriptures which are opposed to your opinion, you would have been confuted in this matter by the Gospel of John…” – Tertullian, tr. by Dr. Holmes, On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter III, ANF, Vol. 3, pg. 915, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0160-0220,_Tertullianus,_De_Carne_Christi_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[14] “On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you.” – Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XXXVIII, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxxviii.html
[15] Chemnitz cited the right book, but seemingly the wrong chapter. Here is the quote he was referencing from Bk. 1: “The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter X, §1-2, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_i/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html
[16] “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IV, §1, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.v.html
[17] “Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XIII, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/heretics/anf03.v.iii.xiii.html
[18] “A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXVII, §1, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxviii.html
[19] I could not find Chemnitz’ exact wording in Irenaeus, but I found a passage that comes fairly close, which he may have been paraphrasing: “And all those other points which I have shown the prophets to have uttered by means of so long a series of Scriptures, he who is truly spiritual will interpret by pointing out, in regard to every one of the things which have been spoken, to what special point in the dispensation of the Lord is referred, and [by thus exhibiting] the entire system of the work of the Son of God, knowing always the same God, and always acknowledging the same Word of God, although He has [but] now been manifested to us; acknowledging also at all times the same Spirit of God, although He has been poured out upon us after a new fashion in these last times, [knowing that He descends] even from the creation of the world to its end upon the human race simply as such, from whom those who believe God and follow His word receive that salvation which flows from Him. Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment. He therefore (i.e., the spiritual man) sifts and tries them all, but he himself is tried by no man: he neither blasphemes his Father, nor sets aside His dispensations, nor inveighs against the fathers, nor dishonours the prophets, by maintaining that they were [sent] from another God [than he worships], or again, that their prophecies were derived from different sources.” – Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXIII, §15, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html
[20] I could not find Chemnitz’ exact wording in Irenaeus, but I found a passage that comes really close and which he may have been paraphrasing:: “If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. And there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend our knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God. […] If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? […] If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXVIII, §2-3, ANF, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_ii/anf01.ix.iii.xxix.html
[21] “Over and over again you turn upon us the silence of Scripture. But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor an afterthought, but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and many of our own day, is already demonstrated by many persons who have treated of this subject, and who have handled the Holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime, but have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner meaning, and have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have been irradiated by the light of knowledge. We, however in our turn will briefly prove it as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly ambitious, building on another’s foundation. But since the fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son), becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.” – Gregory Nazianzus, The Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, §XXI, NPNF2-07, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvii.html
[22] “Was a newly born child able to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered, and from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one day long. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, “in sins my mother conceived me.” For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children.” For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit.” – Origen, tr. Thomas Scheck, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book 5, Chapter 9, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, The Catholic University of America Press (2001), Vol. 103, pg. 367, link: https://tinyurl.com/mkxm4uu7
[23] “And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 24, NPNF1-04, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.xxiv.html
“You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his correspondent, and concerning which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism: but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account, although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on sure grounds like these that the uncertain question of the eighth day was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its purport was not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered on the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the week, by which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.” – Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise On The Merits And Forgiveness Of Sins and On The Baptism Of Infants, Book III, Chapter 11, NPNF1-05, pg. 211, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Peccatorum_Meritis_Et_Remissione_Et_De_Baptismo_Parvulorum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
“[E]ven the infants are, according to the true belief, born in sin, not actual but original, so that we confess they have need of grace for the remission of sins, certainly it must be acknowledged that in the same sense in which they are sinners they are also prevaricators of that law which was given in Paradise, according to the truth of both scriptures, “I accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,” and “Where no law is, there is no prevarication.” And thus, because circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and the infant, on account of the original sin by which God’s covenant was first broken, was not undeservedly to lose his generation unless delivered by regeneration, these divine words are to be understood as if it had been said, Whoever is not born again, that soul shall perish from his people, because he hath broken my covenant, since he also has sinned in Adam with all others.” – Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XVI, Chapter 27, NPNF1-02, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/npnf102.iv.XVI.27.html
[24] “For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. ” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII, §4, ANF01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_ii/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html
[25] “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them, as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker. Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift.” – Cyprian, Epistle LVIII, §2-3, ANF, Vol. 5, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/epistles/anf05.iv.iv.lviii.html
[26] “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 24, NPNF1-04, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.xxiv.html
“The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. […] If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin,—respecting which guilty nature it is written, that “no one is clean, not even if his life be only that of a day.” […] We therefore ought not to doubt that even for infants yet to be baptized was that precious blood shed, which previous to its actual effusion was so given, and applied in the sacrament, that it was said, “This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins.””- Augustine of Hippo, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 34, NPNF1-05, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.x.iii.xxxiv.html
[27] “But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men’s feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man’s feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter, ‘He who is washed has no need of washing a second time’ (John 13:10); and to Nicodemus, ‘Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5). What is the purport of the more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what a difference there is between ‘has no need of washing,’ and ‘cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The Church, lastly, herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism is considered valid.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 14, NPNF1-04, Link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.iv.xiv.html
[28] “For in fact, as to what some opposed to the reasoning of Cyprian, that the apostle says, ‘Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence or in truth, let Christ be preached;’ Cyprian rightly exposed their error, showing that it has nothing to do with the case of heretics, since the apostle was speaking of those who were acting within the Church, with malicious envy seeking their own profit. They announced Christ, indeed, according to the truth whereby we believe in Christ, but not in the spirit in which He was announced by the good evangelists to the sons of the dove. ‘For Paul,’ he says, ‘in his epistle was not speaking of heretics, or of their baptism, so that it could be shown that he had laid down anything concerning this matter. He was speaking of brethren, whether as walking disorderly and contrary to the discipline of the Church, or as keeping the discipline of the Church in the fear of God. And he declared that some of them spoke the word of God steadfastly and fearlessly, but that some were acting in envy and strife; that some had kept themselves encompassed with kindly Christian love, but that others entertained malice and strife: but yet that he patiently endured all things, with the view that, whether in truth or in pretence, the name of Christ, which Paul preached, might come to the knowledge of the greatest number, and that the sowing of the word, which was as yet a new and unaccustomed work, might spread more widely by the preaching of those that spoke. Furthermore, it is one thing for those who are within the Church to speak in the name of Christ, another thing for those who are without, acting against the Church, to baptize in the name of Christ.’ These words of Cyprian seem to warn us that we must distinguish between those who are bad outside, and those who are bad within the Church. And those whom he says that the apostle represents as preaching the gospel impurely and of envy, he says truly were within. This much, however, I think I may say without rashness, if no one outside can have anything which is of Christ, neither can any one within have anything which is of the devil. For if that closed garden can contain the thorns of the devil, why cannot the fountain of Christ equally flow beyond the garden’s bounds? But if it cannot contain them, whence, even in the time of the Apostle Paul himself, did there arise among those who were within so great an evil of envy and malicious strife? For these are the words of Cyprian. Can it be that envy and malicious strife are a small evil? How then were those in unity who were not at peace? For it is not my voice, nor that of any man, but of the Lord Himself; nor did the sound go forth from men, but from angels, at the birth of Christ, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.’ And this certainly would not have been proclaimed by the voice of angels when Christ was born upon the earth, unless God wished this to be understood, that those are in the unity of the body of Christ who are united in the peace of Christ, and those are in the peace of Christ who are of good will. Furthermore, as good will is shown in kindliness, so is bad will shown in malice.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 7, NPNF1-04, Link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.vii.html
[29] “To go on to what he says, “that a bishop should be ‘teachable,'” adding, “But he is teachable who is gentle and meek to learn; for a bishop ought not only to teach, but to learn as well, since he is indeed the better teacher who daily grows and advances by learning better things;” — in these words assuredly the holy man, endowed with pious charity, sufficiently points out that we should not hesitate to read his letters in such a sense, that we should feel no difficulty if the Church should afterwards confirm what had been discovered by further and longer discussions; because, as there were many things which the learned Cyprian might teach, so there was still something which the teachable Cyprian might learn. But the admonition that he gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation. It is handed down to us, therefore, as he himself records, by the apostles, that there is ‘one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism.’ Since then we find that in the times of the apostles themselves there were some who had not the one hope, but had the one baptism, the truth is so brought down to us from the fountain itself, that it is clear to us that it is possible that though there is one Church, as there is one hope, and one baptism, they may yet have the one baptism who have not the one Church; just as even in those early times it was possible that men should have the one baptism who had not the one hope. For how had they one hope with the holy and the just, who used to say, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’ (1 Corinthians 15:32), asserting that there was no resurrection of the dead? And yet they were among the very men to whom the same apostle says, ‘Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’ (1 Corinthians 1:13) For he writes most manifestly to them, saying, ‘How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?’ (1 Corinthians 15:12).” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book V, Chapter 26, NPNF1-04, Link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vii.xxvi.html
[30] “For many carnal and natural men are baptized even within the Church, as the apostle expressly says: “The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God;” and after they had received baptism, he says that they “are yet carnal.” But according to it carnal sense, a soul given up to fleshly appetites cannot entertain but fleshly wisdom about God. Wherefore many, progressing after baptism, and especially those who have been baptized in infancy or early youth, in proportion as their intellect becomes clearer and brighter, while “the inward man is renewed day by day,” throw away their former opinions which they held about God while they were mocked with vain imaginings, with scorn and horror and confession of their mistake. And yet they are not therefore considered not to have received baptism, or to have received baptism of a kind corresponding to their error; but in them both the perfection of the sacrament is honored and the delusion of their mind is corrected, even though it had become inveterate through long confirmation, or been, perhaps, maintained in many controversies.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 15, NPNF1-04, Link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.xv.html?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=16#highlight
[31] “At his [i.e. the Devil’s] suggestion then you have maintained and you think, that ‘there was once when the Son was not;’ this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious men? […] Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as ‘the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.’ for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ […] It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not,’ and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures.” – Athanasius of Alexandria, Discourse I Against the Arians, Ch. 4, §11, 13, tr. John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson, NPNF2-04, link: www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
“For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:— Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence. […] On the other hand, what have these persons to show us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. […] Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever Romans 9:5,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoever falls, ‘knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades ?’ This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, ‘the light of the wicked shall be put out Job 18:5,’) they hide it under the bushel of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hidden by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? For from what sources have they got together these words? Or from whom have they received what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. […] Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles.” – Athanasius of Alexandria, Discourse I Against the Arians, Ch. 3, §9-10, tr. John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson, NPNF2-04, link: www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
[32] “Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts? But if, when you said twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth. As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms.” – Gregory Nazianzus, The Fifth Theological Oration, §XXIV, NPNF2-07, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvii.html
[33] “I would have my disciples convinced of one consent. But you stand round me rather as judges than as learners. Your desire is rather to test and try me than to acquire anything for yourselves. I must therefore, as it were, make my defence before the court, again and again giving answer, and again and again saying what I have received. And you I exhort not to be specially anxious to hear from me what is pleasing to yourselves, but rather what is pleasing to the Lord, what is in harmony with the Scriptures, what is not in opposition to the Fathers.” – Basil, Homily XXIV, NPNF2-08, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vi.ii.v.html
[34] “But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 2, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine/doctrine.iv.iv.iii.html
“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error.” – Augustine of Hippo, Letter LXXXII, Chapter 2, NPNF1-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LXXXII.html
[35] “You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?” – Augustine of Hippo, Against the Donatists on Baptism, Book II, Chapter 3, NPNF1-04, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104/npnf104.v.iv.iv.iii.html
[36] “Blessed be God. who alone hath done wondrous things, who hath made all things and changed all things. Behold, they enjoy the serenity of freedom who a little while ago were held captive, and they are citizens of the Church who were strangers and wanderers, and they are in the state of justice who were in the confusion of sin. For they are not only free but also holy, not only holy but also just, not only just but also sons, not only sons but also heirs, not only heirs but also brothers of Christ. not only brothers of Christ but also co-heirs, not only co-heirs but also members, not only members but also a temple, not only a temple but also instruments of the Spirit. You see how many are the benefits of baptism; some think the heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled with sin, in order that there may be given to them holiness, justice, adoption, inheritance, and the brotherhood of Christ, that they may be His members.” – John Chrysostom, Homilia ad Neophytos, as cited by Augustine of Hippo in Against Julian, Book 1, Chapter 6, §21, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), Vol. 35, pg. 25-26, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/25/mode/1up
[37] “But I know what you are muttering. Speak now, speak and let us hear it. At the end of your work with which we are now dealing, that is, in the last part of Book 4, you say: ‘St. John of Constantinople says there is no original sin in infants. In a homily which he delivered about the baptized’…Do you, then, dare to set these words of the holy bishop John in opposition to so many statements of his great colleagues, and separate him from their most harmonious society, and constitute him their adversary? Far be it, far be it from us to believe or say such an evil thing of so great a man. Far be it from us, I say, to think that John of Constantinople, on the question of the baptism of infants and their liberation by Christ from the paternal handwriting, should oppose so many great fellow bishops, especially the Roman Innocent, the Carthaginian Cyprian, the Cappadocian Basil, the Nazianzene Gregory, the Gaul Hilary, the Milanese Ambrose. There are other matters on which at times even the most learned and excellent defenders of the Catholic rule do not agree, without breaking the bond of the faith, and one speaks better and more truly about one thing and another about another. But this matter about which we are now speaking pertains to the very foundations of the faith. He who would overthrow in the Christian faith what is written: ‘Since by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made to live,’ strives to take away all that we believe in Christ. Christ is fully the Saviour of infants as well. They shall certainly perish unless redeemed by Him, for without His flesh and blood they cannot have life. This John, too, thought and believed and learned and taught. But you twist his words according to your doctrine. He said that infants do not have sins-he meant sins of their own. This is why we rightly call them innocents, according to what the Apostle says, that those not yet born had not done aught of good or evil; not according to what he says: ‘By the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners.’ Even our Cyprian could say the same thing about infants as John, when he wrote: ‘The new-born infant has not committed any sin, and he is forgiven not his own sins, but those of another.’ Therefore, John, comparing them to adults whose personal sins are forgiven in baptism, said they do not have sins-not as you quote him: ‘are not defiled with sin,’ where you want it understood to mean they are not defiled by the sin of the first man.” – Augustine of Hippo, tr. Matthew Schumacher, Against Julian, Book 1, Chapter 6, §21-22, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), Vol. 35, pg. 25-26, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/25/mode/1up
[38] “But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if the words of the Lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when he says, ‘Thinkest thou, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?’ then, because we are God’s faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth…” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII, Section 9, ANF-05, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiii.html
“But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?—unless most ancient custom in any respect avail the Jews, upon the advent of Christ, that is, the Truth, in remaining in their old usage, and forsaking the new way of truth. And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles.” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV, Section 19, ANF-05, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html
[39] “What shall we say of what is also wonderful, that he who carefully observes may find that it is possible that certain persons, without violating Christian charity, may yet teach what is useless, as Peter wished to compel the Gentiles to observe Jewish customs, as Cyprian himself would force heretics to be baptized anew? Whence the apostle says to such good members, who are rooted in charity, and yet walk not rightly in some points, ‘If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you’ (Philippians 3:15).” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 11, NPNF1-04, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
“But since now, as I said before, we have begun a disputation with the epistles of Cyprian, I think that I should not seem even to him, if he were present, ‘to be contending obstinately and persistently in defense of heretics against my brethren and my fellow priests,’ when he learned the powerful reasons which move us to believe that even among heretics, who are perversely obstinate in their malignant error, the baptism of Christ is yet in itself most holy, and most highly to be reverenced. And seeing that he himself, whose testimony has such weight with us, bears witness that they were wont in past times to be admitted without a second baptism, I would have any one, who is induced by Cyprian’s arguments to hold it as certain that heretics ought to be baptized afresh, yet consider that those who, on account of weight of the arguments on the other side, are not as yet persuaded that this should be so, hold the same place as those in past time, who in all honesty admitted men who were baptized in heresy on the simple correction of their individual error, and who were capable of salvation with them in virtue of the bond of unity. And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of any man on earth — let such an one understand, that they who then thought otherwise, but yet preserved their charity, can be saved by the same bond of unity.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book V, Chapter 4, NPNF1-04, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm
[40] Such, then, is their system [i.e. – the Gnostics’ system], which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXVIII, ANF01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_ii/anf01.ix.iii.xxix.html
“Moreover, they [the Gnostics] possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them, sometimes resting upon certain numbers, sometimes on syllables, and sometimes, again, on names; and there are occasions, too, when, by means of those letters which are contained in letters, by parables not properly interpreted, or by certain [baseless] conjectures, they strive to establish that fabulous account which they have devised.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IV, ANF01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_ii/anf01.ix.iii.xxix.html
“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
[41] Tertullian warns against people whose endless curiosity strays away from the rule of faith and threatens to carry Christians away toward heresy. Notice that, in his critique of these sorts of people, Tertullian points out that they must twist Scripture and taint its meaning with their own perverse opinions in order to lead Christians away from sound doctrine – precisely because the Scriptures are the “records of the faith” and no “thing of the faith” can be derived from a place other than the Scriptures:
“So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all, be quite aware that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know. […] To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things. (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while to hold, they betray their own scepticism, while they continue seeking. You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be “led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). […] For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet; and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet believers, they are not Christians. But even though they have their tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion. Previous, however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission, how much more (do they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?” – Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, Chapter XIV, ANF, Vol. 3, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xiv.html
[42] “These [the canonical Scriptures] 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, ‘You err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me’ (Matthew 22:29; John 5:39).” – Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 for Easter, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
[43] “Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning.” – Eusebius, Church History, Chapter 39, §7-14, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html
[44] “And who, anywhere in the world, does not agree that Wednesdays and Fridays are designated as fasts in the church? If, indeed, I need to speak of the Ordinance of the Apostles, they plainly decreed there that Wednesdays and Fridays be fasts at all times except Pentecost, and directed that nothing at all be eaten on the six days of the Passover except bread, salt and water; and which day to keep, and that we break our fast on the night before the Lord’s Day. But who has better knowledge of these things? The deluded man who has just arrived and is still alive today, or those who were witnesses before us, who have had the tradition in the church before us and received it in this form from their fathers—and their fathers in their turn, who learned it from those before them, just as the church possesses the true faith and the traditions to this day because she has received them from her fathers? And again, so much for his idea of the Passover! But then, if the same apostles did not speak of this very subject of Wednesdays and Fridays in the Ordinance, I could prove it in all sorts of other ways. But they wrote about this in specific terms, the church has received it, and there was a world-wide agreement before Aerius and his Aerians.” – Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Aerius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III, tr. Frank Williams, BOSTON: Brill (2013; Second, revised Edition), pg. 509, §6.2-6.4, link: https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf
[45] “‘This fasting,’ he continued, ‘is very good, provided the commandments of the Lord be observed. Thus, then, shall you observe the fasting which you intend to keep. First of all, be on your guard against every evil word, and every evil desire, and purify your heart from all the vanities of this world. If you guard against these things, your fasting will be perfect. And you will do also as follows. Having fulfilled what is written, in the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want, and thus you will exhibit humility of mind, so that he who has received benefit from your humility may fill his own soul, and pray for you to the Lord. If you observe fasting, as I have commanded you, your sacrifice will be acceptable to God, and this fasting will be written down; and the service thus performed is noble, and sacred, and acceptable to the Lord. These things, therefore, shall you thus observe with your children, and all your house, and in observing them you will be blessed; and as many as hear these words and observe them shall be blessed; and whatsoever they ask of the Lord they shall receive.” – Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similitude Fifth, Chapter III, pg. 54-55, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0140-0154,_Haermae_Pastor,_Visions_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[46] “But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: ‘We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said: We ought to obey God rather than man.’ He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: ‘I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire;1705 whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.’ Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows: ‘For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.’ He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert: ‘Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.’ Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter XXIV, NPNF2-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
