Johann Gerhard on True Apostolic Succession
/There are two kinds of succession: one of places and persons, the other of doctrine. You could call the former external and the latter internal. The succession of places and persons is an external, changeable accident and is not good for anything without succession of doctrine. But succession of doctrine is proper to the true church. “Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession. Rather, it is the perpetual consensus of doctrine, which joins later people to earlier people by the bond of faith,” as Gelasius writes correctly (Comment. bk. 3 Irenaei, ch. 3). Therefore we argue against this mark as follows:
First, it does not always apply to the church
(I) Whatever does not always and perpetually apply to the church cannot be its true and proper mark. Yet succession does not apply to the church perpetually and always. Therefore it is not its true and proper mark.
The minor premise is obvious because there was a true, apostolic church before there was such a succession, namely, in the beginning. Nor is “the church called ‘apostolic’ because of succession from the apostles,” as Bellarmine suspects. Rather, it is called “apostolic” from its apostolic doctrine, since in the Apostles’ Creed, which Bellarmine (De justification., bk. 1, ch. 9) claims “was composed by the apostles themselves,” the church is called “apostolic,” though such a succession did not yet exist in it; the apostles themselves were still teaching. The early church in which Christ and the apostles taught was the flowering of the church, yet it lacked that local, personal succession. After all, whom did Christ succeed? Whom did the apostles succeed? The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore He succeeded Melchizedek. Therefore the true succession can be interrupted, provided that it has the succession of doctrine connected with it. Paul says in 2 Tim. 1:3 that he serves God “from his forefathers,” that is, from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Therefore he is proving his faith by an interrupted succession through his forefathers, who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees. When Stephen was accused of false doctrine (Acts 7), he appealed to Abraham, and beginning from him, he went down to the time of the Babylonian captivity, and then to the very times in which he had lived, covering about four hundred years.
The apostles were the true successors of the prophets because they both received and spread the prophets’ pure doctrine. They were the true successors of Aaron because they followed his faith. Yet they succeeded neither the prophets nor Aaron immediately with regard to place. In the same way, those people who sincerely embrace the faith and doctrine of the apostles, as comprehended in their writings, must be considered the true successors of the apostles, even though they do not have that external, local succession.
With reference to the apostles, heretical priests, gravely erring in faith, most recently preceded them. Yet this does not at all oppose the doctrinal succession by which the apostles succeeded the prophets, Aaron, and other devout priests with regard to the ecclesiastical ministry. In the same way, the doctrinal succession was interrupted by a corrupt ministry. Yet this does not at all oppose that doctrinal succession by which the devout and orthodox ministers of the church succeed those who sincerely embrace the apostolic faith.
The apostles appealed to the internal, doctrinal succession over a local, external succession, of which Caiaphas could boast, when they bore public witness that they were teaching “nothing but what the prophets and Moses predicted would come to pass” (Acts 26:22). They also did not ask Caiaphas for ordination. In the same way today, in the Evangelical churches we correctly appeal to the doctrinal succession over a local and personal succession. We ask for neither ordination nor confirmation from the Roman pontiffs, who boast of succession from the apostles but are actually imitating Caiaphas.
Bellarmine makes the exception: “The Aaronic priesthood was temporal and lasted only until the beginning of the New Testament. Then there finally began a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which Christ Himself instituted. Because the apostles were the firstfruit of that priesthood, they were not supposed to have been the successors of Caiaphas but to be the beginning of a new priesthood.”
We respond. (1) Bellarmine himself admits, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 7, § in omni: “Christ’s church was not a new church but only a change of the condition of the church.” But if only the external condition of the church is changed when the succession has been changed, and no new church is established, then succession is not a true and essential mark but only an accidental mark of the church, since it belongs only to the external condition of the church and not to its essence.
(2) As Christ was able to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek—that is, Melchizedek’s successor—even though that succession had been interrupted over the course of several centuries, so also those can be the successors of the apostles who profess the pure and uncorrupted doctrine of the apostles, even though there may be an interruption with regard to time, places, and persons.
(3) It was foretold in the Old Testament that the Aaronic priesthood would end, for which reason the apostles were acting correctly when they separated themselves from Caiaphas and the Levitical priesthood. In the same way, it has been prophesied in the New Testament that “the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4); that false teachers will succeed the apostles and apostolic men and will mislead the church (Acts 20:29); that there will come a time when people will have to come out of the mystical “Babylon” (Rev. 18:4).
(4) He has not yet proved that Christ instituted in the Roman church the same sort of succession on the apostolic throne of Peter, about which the Papists boast, as God instituted in the church of Israel on the throne and seat of Aaron. Indeed, in Christ’s church we should no longer look for a carnal, local, and earthly succession but a doctrinal and spiritual succession, for His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
(5) One can by no means say that, as the sons and descendants of Aaron succeeded him in the Levitical priesthood, so the apostles succeeded Christ in the priesthood according to Melchizedek because, as the Epistle to the Hebrews explains (7:24), Christ has an ἀπαράβατον ἱερωσύνην, “a priesthood that does not pass over to others.” Consequently, Christ did not admit the apostles into the fellowship of this priesthood of His but placed them in charge of His church as its teachers.
(6) Bellarmine adds: “Just as there were no true priests from Aaron until Christ except those who succeeded Aaron, so also there will not be any true priests from the apostles until the end of the world except those who succeed the apostles.” If this means a doctrinal succession, we concede it. If it means a local and personal succession, we deny it. The truth of the apostolic doctrine is not bound to an external throne and a succession on that throne. Rather, one who holds the doctrine of the apostles must be judged to be a true successor of the apostles.
(7) In fact, because not even in the Old Testament was the truth and integrity of Moses’ doctrine bound to the throne of the Aaronic priesthood, it is even less true in the New Testament to say in regard to the Roman throne and see that the truth and integrity of apostolic doctrine depend only on them. The antecedent is obvious because the Levitical priests sometimes followed idolatry. As a result, God also raised up prophets, restorers, and reformers of divine worship. Although they could not boast of an external, local succession on the throne of Moses or Aaron, nevertheless they were true teachers and true successors of Moses and Aaron in the office of teaching.
(8) Therefore we conclude with the words of Lyra, on Matthew 16: “The church does not consist of people with regard to power or office, whether ecclesiastical or secular, because many princes and chief priests and other lesser people have been discovered to have fallen away from the faith. For this reason, the church consists of those persons in whom there is the true knowledge and the confession of faith and truth.”
Second, it does not apply to the church alone
(II) Whatever does not apply only to the true church cannot be its proper mark. Succession does not apply to the true church alone. Therefore it is not its proper mark.
The minor premise can be proved with various examples. At the time of Christ, the synagogue of the Jews had a succession of priests that it could trace back to Aaron himself. Yet purity of doctrine was not always tied to that succession. Nicephorus, Hist. eccles., bk. 2, ch. 4:
Aaron was anointed the first high priest by his brother, Moses. So Aaron was first. Second was Eleazar; third, Phinehas; fourth, Eliezer; fifth, Bochchi; sixth, Uzzah; seventh, Eli; eighth, Achitob; ninth, Abimelech; tenth, Abiathar; eleventh, Zadoc. He was succeeded by Achimaas. Thirteenth was Azariah. Joram followed him, and then came Jehoiada. In order there then followed Axiora, Phadaeus, Sudaeus, Iculus. Twentieth was Joatham. He was followed by Urias, Neri, Joas, Selam, Chelcias. After these came Sorias, Josedech, and Jesus the son of Josedech. Joachim succeeded him. Thirtieth was Eliaseph. Then there were Joachaz, John Jadaeus, Onias, Simon, Eleazar, Manasses, Onias, and Simon. Fortieth was Onias, then Jesus and another Onias and Alcimus. After him came Onias the son of Onias. After him the forty-fourth was Judas Maccabaeus of the sons of Asamonaeus. He was then followed in order by his brother Jonathas and his brother Simon and by John, who was also called Hircanus. Then came Aristobolus, Jannaeus, who also had the name Alexander. Fiftieth was Hircanus; the fifty-first, Antigonus; fifty-second, Anaelus; fifty-third, Aristobolus, whom Herod substituted for Anaelus, who was rejected. He again restored Anaelus when Aristobolus was slain. Jesus the son of Phabus succeeded Anaelus. Then Herod’s father-in-law Simon became the priest. After him came Matthias, then Joseph, whom Jozar succeeded. Sixtieth was Eleazar, who was followed in order by Jesus the son of Sea; Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas; Ishmael the son of Phabus; Eleazar the son of Annas; Simon the son of Camythus. Sixty-seventh was Caiaphas, who was also called Joseph, under whom our Lord died His saving death for us. He was followed by Jonathas the son of Annas, then his brother Matthias, and then Elinaeus, and another Joseph the son of Cama. He was succeeded by Jesus the son of Gamaliel, and then Matthias the son of Theophilus. Last of all was Phinaeus, under whom the city, the temple, and the entire nation were captured by Titus, and all the things of the temple and of the Law were completely destroyed, and everything was brought to ruins.
Tell me, please, what can be demonstrated in the succession of the Roman bishops that cannot be demonstrated in this succession of the Jewish high priests? In fact, the succession of high priests in the Old Testament was based upon a divine command and promise, neither of which can be shown from the Scriptures with regard to the Roman succession. Therefore just as various corruptions, superstitions, and errors crept into the public ministry of the church of Israel, especially in its latter days, despite that succession of high priests [pontificum], so also, despite the succession of pontiffs [pontificum], the same evils have crept into the Roman church, especially in these latter days.
And lest Bellarmine be able to make the exception that “the nature of the Jewish synagogue is different than that of the Christian church” (though elsewhere he himself has been accustomed to argue from the Israelite to the Christian church), we point out that the succession in the New Testament that reached all the way back to the apostles belongs to other churches, too, besides the Roman church, which they boast is the only true and catholic church. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, bk. 3, ch. 3, p. 170: “We have to list those whom the apostles established as bishops in the churches and their successors until us.” And a little later: “It is extremely long to list the successions of all the churches.” Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., bk. 3, ch. 1), after listing the successors of Peter in the Roman church, adds:
In the church at Alexandria the first man to hold the episcopacy after the evangelist Mark was Anianus, after whom came Abilius, who left it to his successor Cerdon. Evodius was the first to govern the church at Antioch after Peter and Luke. Ignatius was second, and his successor was Heros. James, the brother of the Lord, held the episcopacy at Jerusalem for thirty years. Simon, son of Cleophas, succeeded James after the destruction of Jerusalem. Third in order there was Justus. Also at this time Polycarp flourished at Smyrna in Asia Minor and was made bishop by John himself.
See also Eusebius, Hist. ecclesiastica, bks. 3ff. From all this, it is obvious that the apostolic succession thrived not only in the Roman church but also in other churches.
If Bellarmine wants to make the exception that “the succession died out in the other churches and endured only in the Roman church,” we bring forth the Greek church, which traces the succession of its bishops to the times of the apostles. Still enduring are those four patriarchates that church history mentions: Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Of these, the patriarch of Antioch has his throne today in Damascus, and the patriarch of Alexandria has been moved to Cairo, the chief city of Egypt. The diocese of the patriarch of Constantinople extends over the broadest territory of all. Nicephorus (Hist. eccles., bk. 8, ch. 6) begins the list of bishops of Constantinople with “Andrew, the apostle of Christ.”
In more recent years, when Pope Gregory XIII tried to foist his calendar as well as his domination upon the Eastern Christians of Armenia, they responded by letter on the advice that they had communicated with the Eastern patriarchs that “we are not without a head, since we have always had a Catholicos, an archbishop, from the time of Constantine the Great and King Tiridates until this day.” Those who signed that letter were Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople, Sylvester of Alexandria, Joachim of Antioch, and Gabriel of Justiniana Prima Archidarum. The letter was dated November 8, 1582 (Indict. 10). Willetus (De ecclesia, q. 3, not. 3, p. 81) mentions that authentic letters of Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople, Meletius of Alexandria, Gabriel in the church of Thessalonica, etc., are extant, written to the English churches, in which letters they trace the succession of their bishops from the apostles.
Bellarmine makes the exception: (1) “The fathers did not call the church of Constantinople ‘apostolic.’ ”
We respond. It is certain that many churches were founded by the apostles in addition to the Roman church. Among them was also the church of Constantinople. Although those churches were not called “apostolic,” nevertheless they really were apostolic. Baronius (Annal., vol. 1, AD 44, sect. 12) declares: “The apostle Peter was the first to give bishops to the Byzantines and to other places of the same province.” Baronius confirms this from the letters of Pope Agapetus. Hence one cannot deny that the church of Constantinople is apostolic. Nicephorus teaches that it was founded by the apostle Andrew (Hist. eccles., bk. 8, ch. 6). We cannot prove with any suitable argument that he fabricated that succession, for he notes carefully the years of each bishop and takes his list all the way to Alexander, by whose requests Arius was removed. He counts twenty-three bishops from Andrew to Alexander. Also, all the histories testify that that province in which Byzantium was had been assigned to the apostle Andrew. Then, too, Nicephorus himself (bk. 1, ch. 1) testifies that he had faithfully written down the history of the church of Constantinople from “the trustworthy memorials of the ancients,” for he composed that volume at Constantinople where there was an excellent library in the Temple of St. Sophia, to which he had access.
(2) “The fathers of the First Council of Constantinople admit in a letter to Damasus, the Roman pontiff, that that church is new.”
We respond. They did not at all intend to say that that church had begun recently. Rather, previously, when it had been oppressed and almost destroyed by the Macedonian heretic, it was restored to its integrity with the substitution of Nectarius. Therefore they call it “new.” The word in Greek is νεοπαγής, because it was recently restored and renewed. But let us grant that “the succession of bishops in the church of Constantinople can be traced only from the time of Constantine.” We ask whether the church of Constantinople was true and orthodox. If this is conceded, as it cannot be denied, the consequence will be that neither is anything detrimental to our church, which does not have that external succession from the apostles, but that it is enough that with regard to doctrine it has fellowship with the catholic and apostolic church.
(3) “The argument from succession is used especially to prove that there is no church where there is no succession. Yet from this one cannot necessarily conclude that the church is there where a succession is.”
We respond. Drawing both affirmative and negative conclusions from something corresponds to a true and proper mark. You see, once what is proper to something is posited, the thing itself, to which it is proper, is also posited. So also, once what is proper to something is removed, the thing itself, to which it is proper, is also removed. But if one cannot draw an affirmative conclusion from succession to the verity of the church, then surely succession must not be a proper mark of the church.
Moreover, Bellarmine contradicts Costerus, Lessius, and other Papist writers who do draw an affirmative argument from succession. He is especially contradicting Baronius (Annal., vol. 1, AD 30, sect. 52), who says that succession has great strength “because, on the judgment of any person who has reason, one may consider it certain and sure that a legitimate temple—I say, the catholic church herself—is in that place where the succession of pontiffs has been legitimately preserved from its beginning.” In fact, Bellarmine even contradicts himself, for those testimonies that he cites from the fathers in favor of succession draw an affirmative conclusion.
(4) “That the church is not among the Greeks is proved not from their lack of succession but from the fact that three councils—of the Lateran, of Lyon, and of Florence—have said so.”
We respond. Although the Greek church is not without its errors, yet it is purer than the Roman church, as is clear from what has been said previously. There is an explanation elsewhere on what should be thought about those papal councils. Furthermore, if one cannot conclude anything against the Greek church from its lack of succession, then neither can anyone conclude anything against our church on the basis of the same principle. If Bellarmine says that we were condemned in the Council of Trent, we send him back to that excellent book that explains the reasons for rejecting the Council of Trent, the book published in 1584 by the noblemen of the empire who are devoted to the Augsburg Confession, against which book even the gates of hell do not prevail.
(5) “Over long periods of time those patriarchal churches had obvious heretics and, therefore, the succession of the ancient pastors was interrupted.”
We respond. We are ready to prove the very same thing about the Roman popes. Zephyrinus was a Montanist; Marcellinus, an idolater; Liberius, an Arian; Vigilius, a Eutychian; Honorius, a Monothelite; etc. The histories tell us, and Hotomanus in his Brutum fulmen reveals in detail, what sort of people the popes of more recent times have been.
Third, without doctrinal succession, it is not good for anything
(III) Where the doctrinal succession is not present, there the local succession is of no importance, though it may exist Therefore that local succession which lacks the doctrinal succession will be of no importance and, as a consequence, is not a mark of the church.
We prove the first of the premises from this foundation: The true church cannot be one that does not have the true, apostolic doctrine, since it is what might be called the “soul” of the church. Therefore local succession is not good for anything unless it has true doctrine connected to it. Some of our adversaries themselves acknowledge this, as we will show later.
The latter of the premises is confirmed:
(1) By the predictions of the apostles.
In Acts 20:29–30 Paul addresses the elders of the church at Ephesus in this way: “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.” Here we have a clear prophecy that in the church at Ephesus false prophets and wicked misleaders would succeed the orthodox bishops, and the outcome proved this later. 1 Tim. [4]:1–3: “In the last times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy … who forbid marriage and who abstain from foods,” etc. Here the word κωλυόντων [“forbid”] shows that those false teachers will introduce celibacy and the distinction of foods into the church with some degree of power and authority. From this we understand that their successors will be people who will have authority and power in the church. 2 Pet. 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will bring in sects of perdition.” Just as the priests who had the ordinary succession and sat on the throne of Aaron among the Israelites often degenerated into false prophets, so also the apostle foretells that the same thing is to be feared in the New Testament. The prophecy concerning the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:4) especially belongs here: that he will sit “in the temple of God.” That is, he will usurp for himself the domination in the church on the pretext of succession from the apostles.
(2) By the examples of the histories.
In the church that Peter planted at Antioch, the orthodox bishops were succeeded by the heresiarch Paul of Samosata; Peter Gnaphaeus, a Eutychian; Macarius, a Monothelite; etc. In the church at Alexandria planted by the apostles and, as the ancients hand down to us, by Mark, their successors were Georgius and Lucius, Arians; Diascorus, a Eutychian; Cyrus, a Monothelite; etc. In the church at Constantinople, Andrew’s successors were the heresiarchs Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eustathius, and other Arian bishops had the succession of places and sees after the apostles. We shall show later what sort of bishops succeeded in the church that Peter and Paul founded at Rome. Vincent of Lérins, Adv. haeres., ch. 34: “The old stream of foulness has flowed in a constant, secret succession from Simon Magus to the most recent Priscillian.” Bellarmine himself acknowledges that “the heresiarchs have almost all been either bishops or presbyters” (De Rom. pontific., bk. 1, ch. 8). “But those are not true bishops unless they have the succession from the apostles,” as he argues in this chapter. Therefore those who have the succession from the apostles can become heresiarchs.
From all of this, it is quite clear that local succession can be separated from doctrinal succession. Consequently, we can by no means draw an argument from local succession to the verity of the church, which cannot exist without doctrinal succession.The devout ancients confirm the same point. They attribute nothing to a bare personal and local succession that lacks purity of doctrine. Irenaeus, Adv. haer., bk. 4, ch. 43, p. 277:
We must obey those presbyters who are in the church; those who have the succession from the apostles; those who, as we have shown, received along with the succession of episcopacy the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. On the other hand, we must consider suspect all the rest, who depart from the principal succession and are gathered in any place at all. We should hold them either as heretical people of an evil opinion or as schismatics, puffed-up people who please themselves, or again as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of profit and vainglory. All these fall away from the truth. And the heretics, offering a strange fire at the altar of God, that is, strange doctrines, will be burned with heavenly fire, just like Nadab and Abihu.
Here Irenaeus acknowledges only those as true successors of the apostles who have received, along with the succession of the episcopacy, the certain gift of truth. He also teaches that those people who teach a new and corrupt doctrine depart from the principal succession, just as Nadab and Abihu indeed were successors of Aaron, but because they were offering a strange fire, they were consumed by the fire of God’s wrath. In the same book, ch. 44, p. 278: “It is necessary to follow those who guard the doctrine of the apostles and who, with the order of the presbytery, provide sound speech and behavior without offense.”
Tertullian, De praescript. adv. haeres.:
Even if heretics fabricate such a succession of bishops, their very doctrine, when compared with apostolic doctrine, will declare from its diversity and quantity that it does not belong to any apostle as its author, nor to any apostolic man. This is because, just as the apostles did not teach different things among themselves, so also apostolic men did not publish writings contrary to the apostles, except those people who revolted from the apostles and preached in a different manner.
Finally, he concludes: “We must consider the adulteration of Scripture and of its exposition to be located where a diversity of doctrine is found.” We say the same thing about papal dogmas, because a comparison of them with apostolic doctrine reveals that they do not come from any apostle or apostolic man. Page 102: “Those churches are the offshoots of apostolic churches. They preserve the handing down of faith and the seeds of doctrine.” Page 107: “Although some churches do not mention an apostle or apostolic man as their founder, as being much more recent, yet being unanimous in the same faith, they are considered no less apostolic on account of kinship of doctrine.” Ibid.: “If a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, or even if a martyr has fallen away from the rule, will heresies, for that reason, seem to have the truth? Do we prove the faith on the basis of persons, or the persons on the basis of the faith?” The Papists try to prove the faith on the basis of persons, namely, on the basis of a personal succession of bishops, but we say that the persons must be proved on the basis of their faith.
Bishop Claudius Taurinensis:
“I say that that person is apostolic not who holds the throne of the apostles, but rather who embraces the office and doctrine of the apostles. After all, Pharisees, scribes, and all kinds of wicked hypocrites occupied the throne of Moses, the best prophet, though they did not at all teach the true commandments of Moses from that place.”
Epiphanius, Haeres. 55:
“The succession of doctrine is to be sought, not the succession of persons.”
Nazianzen, Orat. de laud. Athanasii, vol. 2, p. 502, writes:
“Athanasius succeeded Mark and was selected by the approval of all the people.”
Then he adds: “He had a greater succession of piety and faith than of place and dignity because he was not the immediate successor of Mark, if we consider place, but came after a long interval of time. If we consider faith, however, he was his immediate successor, and this, only, is the true succession.” These are his words:
οὐχ ἧττον τῆς εὐσεβείας ἢ προεδρίας αὐτοῦ διάδοχος· τῇ μὲν γὰρ πολλοστὸς ἀπʼ ἐκείνου, τῇ δὲ εὐθὺς μετʼ ἐκείνου εὑρίσκεται, ἣν δὴ καὶ κυρίως ὑποληπτέον διαδοχὴν, τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὁμόγνωμον καὶ ὁμόθρονον, τὸ δὲ ἀντίδοξον καὶ ἀντίθρονον, καὶ ἡ μὲν προσηγορίαν, ἡ δὲ ἀλήθειαν ἔχει διαδοχῆς. That is,] he was a successor no less of piety than of the primary chair. If you consider the latter, he will be very far away from him. If you have regard to the former, he will be found right next to him. This is what must properly be considered the succession, for the man who professes the same doctrine of faith is also a sharer of the same throne. The man who embraces a contrary faith ought to be considered an adversary on the throne. Yet the latter has the title of succession, while the former has the reality and truth of succession, etc.
“We should not consider him a successor who breaks in by force, but him who has endured such force; nor should we consider him a successor who defends a contrary opinion, but him who is of the same opinion, unless perhaps he is called a ‘successor’ in the same way as we say that illness succeeds health, darkness succeeds light, storms succeed tranquility, and madness succeeds wisdom.”
Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 5, ch. 6) lists the succession of the bishops of Rome but adds clearly: “They kept the form of apostolic preaching and protected unharmed and uninjured the same preaching of the divine faith that the apostles handed down.”
Ambrose, De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 6, vol. 1, p. 156: “Those who do not have the faith of Peter do not have the inheritance of Peter.”
Jerome, Letter 1 ad Heliodor.: “It is not easy to stand in the place of Peter and Paul and to hold the throne of those who rule with Christ, because it is said concerning this: ‘The sons of the saints are not those who hold the places of the saints, but those who do their works.’ ”
Chrysostom, or the author of the Opus imperf., homily 43 on Matthew 23: “The throne does not make the priest, but the priest makes the throne. The place does not sanctify the man; but the man, the place. He who sits well upon his throne will receive honor from it. He who sits badly does harm to the throne. A bad priest gets accusation, not dignity, from his priesthood.”
Augustine, De unit. ecclesiae, ch. 4: “Those who disagree with the Holy Scriptures, even though they be found in all places where the church is designated, are not of the church.” Chapter 16: “We do not wish to prove our church from the succession of bishops nor from the authority of councils nor from the frequency of miracles nor from dreams and visions. All such things that happen in the catholic church must be proved for this reason, because they happen in her; they do not, therefore, prove her. The Lord Jesus Himself, when He rose from the dead, sent His disciples back to the Scriptures of the Law and the prophets.” On John, tractate 46: “You must listen to those who are seated upon the throne, for by sitting upon the throne they are teaching the Law of God. Therefore God teaches through them. But if they are teaching their own things, do not listen, do not do.”
Taken and adapted from: On the Church, Theological Commonplaces, by Johann Gerhard