Note:This section will only present instances in the Church Fathers where the words dogma and creed appear, in order to demonstrate that the early Church was indeed dogmatic on a multitude of issues and did not tolerate disagreement on them. This section will not provide the dogmas themselves, but will instead highlight the use of the terms “dogma” and “creed”. For information on the universal dogmatic teachings of the early Church, such as icons and images, the veil, war, and other matters, please refer to the rest of the website.
Church Dogmas:
Justin Martyr:
“Rusticus the prefect said, What kind of doctrines do you profess? Justin said, I have endeavoured to learn all doctrines; but I have acquiesced at last in the true doctrines, those namely of the Christians, even though they do not please those who hold false opinions. Rusticus the prefect said, Are those the doctrines that please you, you utterly wretched man? Justin said, Yes, since I adhere to them with right dogma. Rusticus the prefect said, What is the dogma? Justin said, That according to which we worship the God of the Christians, whom we reckon to be one from the beginning, the maker and fashioner of the whole creation, visible and invisible; and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who had also been preached beforehand by the prophets as about to be present with the race of men, the herald of salvation and teacher of good disciples.”–The Martyrdom of Justin chapter 1
Irenaeus 130- 202 AD:
Clement of Alexandria:
“For we must never, as do those who follow the heresies, adulterate the truth, or steal the canon of the Church, by gratifying our own lusts and vanity, by defrauding our neighbours; whom above all it is our duty, in the exercise of love to them, to teach to adhere to the truth.”– Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 7, chapter 16
As Scripture has called the Greeks pilferers of the Barbarian philosophy, it will next have to be considered how this may be briefly demonstrated. For we shall not only show that they have imitated and copied the marvels recorded in our books; but we shall prove, besides, that they have plagiarized and falsified (our writings being, as we have shown, older) the chief dogmas they hold, both on faith and knowledge and science, and hope and love, and also on repentance and temperance and the fear of God — a whole swarm, verily, of the virtues of truth.”-Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 2, chapter 1
“We shall find another testimony in confirmation, in the fact that the best of the philosophers, having appropriated their most excellent dogmas from us,” The Stromata (Book VI chapter 4
“Further, Clement the Stromatist, in the various definitions which he framed, that they might guide the man desirous of studying theology in every dogma of religion, defining what spirit is, and how it is called spirit, says: Spirit is a substance, subtle, immaterial, and which issues forth without form.“- Clement of Alexandria, Fragments
Tertullian:
“We are taught God by the prophets, and by Christ, not by the philosophers nor by Epicurus. We who believe that God really lived on earth, and took upon Him the low estate of human form, for the purpose of man’s salvation, are very far from thinking as those do who refuse to believe that God cares for anything. Whence has found its way to the heretics an argument of this kind: If God is angry, and jealous, and roused, and grieved, He must therefore be corrupted, and must therefore die. Fortunately, however, it is a part of the creed of Christians even to believe that God did die, and yet that He is alive for evermore. Superlative is their folly, who prejudge divine things from human; so that, because in man’s corrupt condition there are found passions of this description, therefore there must be deemed to exist in God also sensations of the same kind.”– Tertullian Against Marcion, book 2 chapter 16
“If, with the object of convicting the rivals and persecutors of Christian truth, from their own authorities, of the crime of at once being untrue to themselves and doing injustice to us, one is bent on gathering testimonies in its favour from the writings of the philosophers, or the poets, or other masters of this world’s learning and wisdom, he has need of a most inquisitive spirit, and a still greater memory to carry out the research. Indeed, some of our people, who still continued their inquisitive labours in ancient literature, and still occupied memory with it, have published works we have in our hands of this very sort; works in which they relate and attest the nature and origin of their traditions, and the grounds on which opinions rest, and from which it may be seen at once that we have embraced nothing new or monstrous nothing for which we cannot claim the support of ordinary and well-known writings, whether in ejecting error from our creed, or admitting truth into it.–Tertullian The souls testimony chapter 1
“ Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, both those who remained steadfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy. For the apostle does not mean that those persons should be deemed approved who exchange their creed for heresy; although they contrariously interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; as if, after proving all things amiss, one might not through error make a determined choice of some evil thing.”–Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics chapter 4
Origen of Alexandria:
“For thy voice is sweet” (Song of Songs 2:14). Who would not admit that the voice of the Catholic (Universal) Church is sweet in her confession of the true faith; whereas the voice of the heretics, who speak not the doctrines of the truth, but blasphemies against God and iniquity on high (Psalm 73:9), is harsh and unpleasing? In the same way, the face of the Church is fair, but that of heretics is hideous and ugly—if indeed anyone is able to discern this beauty of face, if he is spiritual, that is to say, and a person who knows how to sift all things out. For with ignorant and sensual men the fallacies of falsehood appear more beautiful than do the dogmas of the truth. As to the outwork in this passage, we can, moreover, add this: that the outwork may be the bosom of the Father, whence the Only-Begotten Son declares all things and tells His Church whatsoever things are hidden in the secrets of the Father’s heart. — Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Book 3, chapter 15
These subjects, indeed, are treated by us with great solicitude and caution, in the manner rather of an investigation and discussion, than in that of fixed and certain decision. For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity. – Origen, On First Principles 1.6.1
The subjects considered in the previous chapter have been spoken of in general language, the nature ofrational beings being discussed more by way of intelligent inference than strict dogmatic definition, with the exception of the place where we treated, to the best of our ability, of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We have now to ascertain what those matters are which it is proper to treat in the following pages according to our dogmatic belief, i.e., in agreement with the creed of the Church. – Origen, On First Principles 1.7.1
Our statement, however, that the understanding is converted into a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader must carefully consider and settle for himself, as these views are not be regarded as advanced by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as opinions, treated in the style of investigation and discussion. – Origen, On First Principles 2.8.4
Acts of the Disputation with Manes (Archelaus):
“I wish you to know, most pious father, that in these days there has arrived in our parts a certain person named Manes, who gives out that he is to complete the doctrine of the New Testament. And in the statements which he has made there have been some things, indeed, which may harmonize with our faith; but there have been also certain affirmations of his which seem very far removed from what has come down to us by the tradition of our fathers. For he has interpreted some doctrines in a strange fashion, imposing on them certain notions of his own, which have appeared to me to be altogether foreign and opposed to the faith….those who seek to set up any new dogma have the habit of very readily perverting into a conformity with their own notions any proofs they desire to take from the Scriptures. In anticipation, however, of this, the apostolic word marks out the case thus: If any one preach any other gospel unto you than that which you have received, let him be accursed. And consequently, in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles, a disciple of Christ ought to receive nothing new as doctrine.”– Acts of the Disputation with Manes, chapter 40 (270 AD)
[AD 390] Ticonius on Revelation 2:24-25:
To be sure, the Lord speaks to those who kept their minds from the doctrines of the devil, lest they turn from the dogma of the truth of the church. For they were taught that they should follow no man but rather the truth of the faith, for the Lord said to those who had left the faith, “I never knew you, you evildoers.” For just as those who do iniquity do not know God, although they speak of him, so also God does not acknowledge the workers of iniquity, although he knows them all. In this way, the righteous do not know the teaching of Satan, although they might hear it and feel the attraction of his temptations. And so it can happen that the righteous do not hear evil things from which they abstain by righteous living, since it is written, “There must be heresies so that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” And again, “Should they say to you, Lo, Christ is in the inner rooms, do not believe it.” – Source: COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 2:24
Jerome:
But this preaching, which seemed trivial at the beginning, when it has been sown, either into the soul of the believer or into the whole world, does not rise up into a garden plant, but it grows into a tree, so that the birds of the sky, which we ought to understand either as the souls of believers or their resolutions submitted to the service of God, come and dwell in its branches. I think the branches of the Gospel-tree which grows from the grain of mustard seed are the diverse kinds of dogmas in which each of the above-mentioned birds finds rest. Let us as well use the wings of a dove, so that by flying on high we might be able to dwell in the branches of this tree and make little nests of doctrines for ourselves. Let us flee from earthly things and hasten toward heavenly things.” – Jerome Commentary on Matthew, 2.13.31–32.
“Again he sent other servants, saying: ‘Tell those who are invited: Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my bulls and my fatted calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage.’” As for the servants who were sent second, it is better that they be understood as the prophets than as the apostles, on the condition, however, that above this we read “servant.” But if you read the former passage as “servants,” then here the second group of servants should be understood as referring to the apostles. In the dinner made ready, and the bulls and the fatted calves slaughtered, either the royal wealth is being described metaphorically, so that spiritual things are understood from fleshly things; or at least the greatness of dogmas and the very detailed learning from God’s law can be understood. ” – Jerome Commentary on Matthew, 3.22.4.
Ammonius of Alexandria 445–517 AD
”But if teachers depart in any way from the dogmas of the Church, then instead of the catholic designation, their disciples are drawn under the private name of their master.” — Ammonius of Alexandria (Fragments on Acts, PG 85.1582)
Anyone can be dogmatic:
Irenaeus of Lyons:
“And not only are they convicted of bringing forward, as if their own [original ideas], those things which are to be found among the comic poets, but they also bring together the things which have been said by all those who were ignorant of God, and who are termed philosophers; and sewing together, as it were, a motley garment out of a heap of miserable rags, they have, by their subtle manner of expression, furnished themselves with a cloak which is really not their own. They do, it is true, introduce a new kind of doctrine, inasmuch as by a new sort of art it has been substituted [for the old]. Yet it is in reality both old and useless, since these very opinions have been sewed together out of ancient dogmas redolent of ignorance and irreligion. For instance, Thales of Miletus affirmed that water was the generative and initial principle of all things. Now it is just the same thing whether we say water or Bythus. The poet Homer, again, held the opinion that Oceanus, along with mother Tethys, was the origin of the gods: this idea these men have transferred to Bythus and Sige. Anaximander laid it down that infinitude is the first principle of all things, having seminally in itself the generation of them all, and from this he declares the immense worlds [which exist] were formed: this, too, they have dressed up anew, and referred to Bythus and their Aeons. Anaxagoras, again, who has also been surnamed “Atheist,” gave it as his opinion that animals were formed from seeds falling down from heaven upon earth. This thought, too, these men have transferred to “the seed” of their Mother, which they maintain to be themselves; thus acknowledging at once, in the judgment of such as are possessed of sense, that they themselves are the offspring of the irreligious Anaxagoras.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.14.2
“With reference to these objections, Plato, that ancient Athenian, who also was the first to introduce this opinion, when he could not set them aside, invented the [notion of] a cup of oblivion, imagining that in this way he would escape this son of difficulty. He attempted no kind of proof [of his supposition], but simply replied dogmatically [to the objection in question], that when souls enter into this life, they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance [into the world], before they effect an entrance into the bodies [assigned them]. It escaped him, that [by speaking thus] he fell into another greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, dost thou obtain the knowledge of this fact (since thy soul is now in the body), that, before it entered into the body, it was made to drink by the demon a drug which caused oblivion? For if thou hast a remembrance of the demon, and the cup, and the entrance [into life], thou oughtest also to be acquainted with other things; but if, on the other hand, thou art ignorant of them, then there is no truth in the story of the demon, nor in the cup of oblivion prepared with art.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.33.2
All therefore speak falsely who disallow his (Adam’s) salvation, shutting themselves out from life for ever, in that they do not believe that the sheep which had perished has been found. For if it has not been found, the whole human race is still held in a state of perdition. False, therefore, is that, man who first started this idea, or rather, this ignorance and blindness-Tatian. As I have already indicated, this man entangled himself with all the heretics. This dogma, however, has been invented by himself, in order that, by introducing something new, independently of the rest, and by speaking vanity. he might acquire for himself hearers void of faith, affecting to be esteemed a teacher, and endeavouring from time to time to employ sayings of this kind often [made use of] by Paul: “In Adam we all die; ” ignorant, however, that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Since this, then, has been clearly shown, let all his disciples be put to shame, and let them wrangle about Adam, as if some great gain were to accrue to them if he be not saved; when they profit nothing more [by that], even as the serpent also did not profit when persuading man [to sin], except to this effect, that he proved him a transgressor, obtaining man as the first-fruits of his own apostasy. But he did not know God’s power. Thus also do those who disallow Adam’s salvation gain nothing, except this, that they render themselves heretics and apostates from the truth, and show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death.” -Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.23.8
Clement of Alexandria:
They say, then, that Hipparchus the Pythagorean, being guilty of writing the tenets of Pythagoras in plain language, was expelled from the school, and a pillar raised for him as if he had been dead. Wherefore also in the Barbarian philosophy they call those dead who have fallen away from the dogmas, and have placed the mind in subjection to carnal passions. “For what fellowship hath righteousness and iniquity?” according to the divine apostle. “Or what communion hath light with darkness? or what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath the believer with the unbeliever?” For the honours of the Olympians and of mortals lie apart. “Wherefore also go forth from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.” – Clement of Alexandria The Stromata Book 5 Chapter 9
Tertullian of Carthage:
Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they will be more easily reprobated, when they are detected to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of the (tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees. A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as “forbid to marry” he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against those who said that “the resurrection was past already.” Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions “endless genealogies,” one also recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain AEon, whosoever he be, of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight ten other AEons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty AEons. The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are “in bondage to elements,” points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and then compares it with God, who has no beginning. By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his power “to be in bondage” to a being which he puts on a par with God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those “who eat things sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.” There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against All Heretics, Ch. 33
“Theirs is called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come in the flesh,” and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion. The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels, was itself actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s own person.” – Tertullian, Prescription Against All Heretics, Ch. 33
Origen of Alexandria:
“But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defense is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things? (I know not,) unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and no triflers, who invite them to superstition and to unchaste spectacles, and those, moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense who lead and drag the young men to all those disorderly acts which we know are often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as we can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing forth its excellence and purity.” – Origen Against Celsus, Book 3, Ch 57
> “For true wisdom does not mislead, but ignorance does, while of existing things knowledge alone is permanent, and the truth which is derived from wisdom. But if, contrary to the definition of wisdom, you call any one whatever who dogmatizes with sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in conformity with what you call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God, being misled and ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our doctrine, wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them, I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom.”- Origen Against Celsus, Book 3, Ch. 72
Hippolytus of Rome
“He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother. When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. ” – Hippolytus against Noetus, Ch.1
Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, I am the God of your fathers: you shall have no other gods beside me; and again in another passage, I am the first, He says, and the last; and beside me there is none other. Thus they say they prove that God is one” – Hippolytus against Noetus, Ch.2
“In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. – Hippolytus against Noetus, Ch.3
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God.” – Hippolytus against Noetus, Ch.9
Jerome:
” Now, as for the devil, he is called “an enemy man” because he ceased being a god. In the ninth Psalm it is written of him: “Rise up, O Lord, let not the man prevail.” In light of this, those who are put in charge in the Church must not fall asleep. Otherwise, while they are showing such negligence, the enemy man will introduce the sowing of weeds, that is, the dogmas of the heretics.“ – Jerome Commentary on Matthew, 2.13.37.
This passage is also explained in another way. We read in Plato, and it is a common dogma among the philosophers, that there are three passions in the human soul: τὸ λογιστικόν, which we can translate “rational”; τὸ θυμικόν, which we call “full of anger” or “irascible”; and τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, which we call “desirous.” – Jerome Commentary on Matthew 2.13.33
“You of little faith, why are you thinking among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves and the five thousand men and how many baskets you took up?” etc. On the occasion of an instruction by which the Savior had commanded, saying: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” he teaches them the significance of the five and seven loaves, and of the five thousand and four thousand men, who were fed in the desert. Thus, although the greatness of the signs is clear, yet something else may be shown by the spiritual understanding. For if the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees signifies not physical bread, but perverse traditions and heretical dogmas, why may not the food on which the people of God are nourished signify true and sound doctrine? Someone may ask and say: How is it that they had no bread? For they had gotten into the boat immediately after the seven little baskets were filled. Then they came to the region of Magedan, and while sailing there they hear that they must beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. But the Scripture testifies that they had forgotten to take it with them. This is the leaven of which the apostle also speaks: “A little leaven ruins the whole lump.” Marcion, Valentinus, and all the heretics had leaven of this sort. By all means it must be avoided. Leaven has this power, that if it is mixed with flour, that which seemed small grows greater and draws all the dough to its flavor. In the same way, then, heretical teaching, if it casts a little spark into your breast, in a little while rises up as a huge flame and draws to itself the possession of the entire man. Finally, it follows: “Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” – Jerome Commentary on Matthew, 2.16.8–12