Cyprian : Nor let any one think that, because baptism is proposed to them, heretics will be kept back from coming to the Church, as if offended at the name of a second baptism; nay, but on this very account they are rather driven to the necessity of coming by the testimony of truth shown and proved to them. For if they shall see that it is determined and decreed by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith they are there baptized is considered just and legitimate, they will think that they are justly and legitimately in possession of the Church also, and the other gifts of the Church; nor will there be any reason for their coming to us, when, as they have baptism, they seem also to have the rest. But further, when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first come to the truth of the Church. Nor will heretics refuse to be baptized among us with the lawful and true baptism of the Church, when they shall have learnt from us that they also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of John,36 as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. — Epistle LXXII Cyprian : That we must not grieve the Holy Spirit, whom we have received. Paul the apostle to the Ephesians: "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in which ye were sealed in the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be taken away from you." — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews John Chrysostom : But what is "the doctrine of baptisms"? Not as if there were many baptisms, but one only. Why then did he express it in the plural? Because he had said, "not laying again a foundation of repentance." For if he again baptized them and catechised them afresh, and having been baptized at the beginning they were again taught what things ought to be done and what ought not, they would remain perpetually incorrigible. "And of laying on of hands." For thus did they receive the Spirit, "when Paul had laid his hands on them" (Acts xix. 6), it is said. "And of the resurrection of the dead." For this is both effected in baptism, and is affirmed in the confession. "And of eternal judgment." But why does he say this? Because it was likely that, having already believed, they would either be shaken [from their faith], or would lead evil and slothful lives, he says, "be wakeful." It is not open to them to say, If we live slothfully we will be baptized again, we will be catechised again, we will again receive the Spirit; even if now we fall from the faith, we shall be able again by being baptized, to wash away our sins, and to attain to the same state as before. Ye are deceived (he says) in supposing these things. — Homily on Hebrews 9 Oecumenius : "of faith toward God." For it is not necessary now, as it was from the beginning, to believe in God. For you have already believed through teaching. The structure is thus. Therefore, leaving the elementary of God, what is this? The doctrine of baptisms, the laying on of hands (by which, it says, you were enlightened), and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment, let us press on to perfection. For it is not necessary, it says, always to speak the same things; for it has been said once and has come to pass, but it is necessary, it says, also to contribute what is among you, namely, a good conduct and a faith worthy of it. For this is perfection, to be two-handed in virtue, as it were, saying; Be sober; for there is no need to live carelessly, and again to be baptized, and through the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit's visitation. "of instruction about baptism." Not as if there were many baptisms, Paul said this in the plural; for there is one baptism (Eph. 4:5); but this follows from the context. For if he were to instruct them again, and baptize them again; and again baptize those who have fallen away; then necessarily there would be many baptisms; but this is absurd. Therefore, it is not necessary to rebaptize you; but to remain with the former baptism. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews Oecumenius : Perhaps these, still clinging to the law, thinking more in Jewish manners, because there are different and many baptisms in the law, wished also that the baptism of the New Covenant, which grants regeneration, should be administered many times, because they wished that the remission of sins should be considered worthy only once. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews Oecumenius : "the laying on of hands." Those things that take place in baptism; or there, when the apostles laid on their hands, they gave the Spirit, which Simon the sorcerer also sought. (Acts 8:18-19) "the resurrection of the dead." For this also takes place in baptism through the form of rising up, and is confirmed in the confession; for we confess that we believe in the resurrection of the dead. "and eternal judgment." That is, of the coming judgment, which grants either eternal good or punishment. This seems to say: since it was likely that they would be shaken, although they had already believed, either that if we live deeply, or fall away from faith, we shall be baptized again, or again be able to wash away sins, and to share in the same things as before. For they err in thinking these things. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews Tertullian : Now, how long shall we saw away along the same line on this question [i.e., what is permitted], when we have a long-standing practice which by anticipation has all but settled the question? Even though no scriptural passage prescribes it, it is strengthened by a custom that certainly arose from tradition. How can anything become normal practice if it has not first been handed down to us? But, you tell me, "You must always have a written source if you are going to plead the force of tradition."Let us look into the matter, then, of whether or not a tradition without a written source should be accepted. The answer will certainly be no if we cannot adduce examples of other observations which are without written source in Scripture and rest solely on the basis of tradition and yet have come to have the force of custom. To begin, for instance, with baptism: When we are about to enter the water, and, as a matter of fact, even a short while before, we declare in the presence of the congregation before the bishop that we renounce the devil, his pomps and his angels. After that, we are immersed in the water three times, making a somewhat fuller pledge than the Lord has prescribed in the gospel. After this, having stepped forth from the font, we are given a taste of a mixture of milk and honey and from that day, for a whole week, we forego our daily bath. We also receive the sacrament of the Eucharist that the Lord entrusted to all at the hour for supper, at our early morning meetings, and then from the hand of none but the bishops. Further, we make offerings for the dead on their anniversary to celebrate their birthday of eternal life. We consider fasting or kneeling during service on Sundays to be unlawful, and we enjoy the same privilege from Easter until Pentecost. We also are upset if any of our bread or wine falls to the earth at the Lord's Supper. Lastly, we make the sign of the cross on our foreheads at every turn, at our going in or coming out of the house, while dressing, while putting on our shoes, when we are taking a bath, before and after meals, when we light the lamps, when we go to bed or sit down, and in all the ordinary actions of daily life. — THE CHAPLET 3.1-4