Commonitorium 1 part 4/6

We must greatly heed and retain the teaching of this passage, so that, by so great an example of evangelical authority, whenever we see any persons bringing forth apostolic or prophetic words against the catholic faith, we may by no means doubt that the devil speaks through them. For just as then head spoke to head, so now too members speak to members—namely, the members of the devil to the members of Christ, the faithless to the faithful, the sacrilegious to the religious, in short, the heretics to the Catholics. But what do they say after all? 'If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down'; that is, if you wish to be the Son of God and to receive the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, cast yourself down—that is, cast yourself down from the doctrine and tradition of this lofty Church, which is even reckoned the temple of God.

And if anyone should ask one of the heretics who is persuading him of such things: 'Whence do you prove, whence do you teach, that I ought to abandon the universal and ancient faith of the catholic Church?' at once he replies: 'For it is written.' And immediately he prepares a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the Prophets—by which, interpreted in a new and evil manner, the unhappy soul may be cast headlong from the catholic citadel into the abyss of heresy. And further, by the promises that follow, the heretics have been accustomed in a wondrous manner to deceive the unwary.

For indeed they dare to promise and to teach that in their church—that is, in the little conventicle of their communion—there is a great and special, and plainly personal, grace of God; so that, without any labour, without any zeal, without any diligence, even if they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, yet all who belong to their number are so divinely dispensed that, borne up by angelic hands—that is, preserved by angelic protection—they can never dash their foot against a stone, that is, can never be offended. XXVII. But someone will say:

If both the Devil and his disciples use the divine words, sentences, and promises—of whom some are false apostles, others false prophets and false teachers, and all alike wholly heretics—what shall catholic men and sons of mother Church do? In what manner shall they discern truth from falsehood in the holy Scriptures? This indeed they will take the greatest care to do, which we have written that holy and learned men handed down to us at the beginning of this Commonitory: namely, that they interpret the divine canon according to the traditions of the universal Church and in accordance with the rules of catholic doctrine; in which same catholic and apostolic Church it is necessary that they follow universality, antiquity, and consent.

And if at any time a part should rebel against the whole, novelty against antiquity, the dissent of one or of a few who err against the consent of all, or at least of by far the greater number of Catholics, let them prefer the integrity of the whole to the corruption of the part: in which same universality, let them prefer the religion of antiquity to the profanity of novelty; and likewise, within antiquity itself, let them set before the rashness of one or of a very few, first of all the general decrees of a universal council, if there be any; then next, if that be wanting, let them follow what is nearest to it—the mutually agreeing opinions of many and great masters.

By observing these things faithfully, soberly, and carefully, with the Lord's help, we shall without great difficulty detect the harmful errors of any heretics that arise. XXVIII. Here now I see it to be consistent that I should demonstrate by examples in what manner the profane novelties of heretics are both detected and condemned, when the mutually agreeing sentences of the ancient masters are brought forth and compared. Which ancient consensus of the holy fathers, however, is to be sought out and followed by us with great zeal, not in all the little questions of the divine law, but only, and certainly chiefly, in the rule of faith.

But neither always nor all heresies are to be assailed in this manner, but only the novel and recent ones, namely, when they first arise, before they are hindered by the very narrowness of time from falsifying the rules of the ancient faith, and before, as the poison spreads more widely, they attempt to corrupt the volumes of the elders. But heresies that are widespread and inveterate are by no means to be approached by this method, because, through the lengthy course of time, a long occasion of laying hold upon the truth has lain open to them.

And therefore, whatever those more ancient profanities of schisms or heresies there be, it behoves us in no way to deal with them except either by the sole authority of the Scriptures, if need be, to refute them, or else to shun those already from of old convicted and condemned by the universal councils of the catholic priests. And so, as soon as the rottenness of any evil error begins to break out, and to steal certain words of the sacred law for its own defence, and to expound them deceitfully and fraudulently, at once the sentences of the elders are to be gathered together for the interpreting of the canon; by which whatever novel thing arises, and therefore profane, may be exposed without any ambiguity, and condemned without any reconsideration.

But only the sentences of those fathers are to be compared who, living, teaching, and abiding holily, wisely, and constantly in the catholic faith and communion, deserved either to die faithfully in Christ or to be slain happily for Christ. Yet they are to be believed under this law: that whatever either all or the more part, with one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and perseveringly—as if by a certain council of masters agreeing among themselves—have, by receiving, holding, and handing down, established, this is to be held as undoubted, certain, and ratified.

But whatever anyone—however holy and learned, however a confessor and martyr—may have held apart from all, or even contrary to all, let it be set apart, among private and hidden and personal little opinions, from the authority of the common and public and general sentence; lest, with the utmost peril of eternal salvation, after the manner of the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, the ancient truth of the universal doctrine being forsaken, we follow the novel error of a single man. Concerning the holy and catholic consent of which blessed fathers, lest anyone should perhaps rashly think it to be despised by him, the Apostle says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians:

'And God has set some in the Church: first apostles' (of whom he himself was one), 'secondly prophets' (such as we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, namely Agabus), 'thirdly teachers,' who are now called expositors, whom this same Apostle also sometimes names prophets, because through them the mysteries of the prophets are opened to the peoples. Whoever, therefore, shall despise these—divinely dispensed in the Church of God through times and places—when in the sense of catholic doctrine they hold one and the same thing in Christ, despises not man but God: from whose truth-speaking unity, that no one may disagree, the same Apostle earnestly entreats, saying:

'Now I beseech you, brethren, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgement.' But if anyone should depart from the communion of their sentence, he will hear that word of the same Apostle: 'God is not the God of dissension, but of peace'—that is, not of him who has fallen away from the unity of agreement, but of those who have remained in the peace of agreement—'as,' he says, 'I teach in all the churches of the saints,' that is, of Catholics: which are therefore holy, because they persist in the communion of the faith. And lest anyone, perhaps, leaving the rest aside, should arrogate that he alone be heard, that he alone be believed, a little after he says: 'Did the word of God,' he says, 'proceed from you, or did it come unto you only?'

And lest this be taken as it were perfunctorily, he added: 'If anyone,' he says, 'thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord.' What commandments, indeed, but that if anyone is a prophet or spiritual—that is, a master of spiritual things—he should show himself a cultivator of equality and unity with the utmost zeal; namely, that he neither prefer his own opinions to the rest, nor depart from the senses of all? Whoever is ignorant of the commandments of this matter, he says, 'shall be ignored': that is, whoever either does not learn what he knows not, or despises what he knows, shall be ignored—this is, shall be held unworthy to be regarded by God among those united in faith and made equal in humility: than which evil I know not whether anything more bitter can be conceived.

Yet we see that this, according to the apostolic warning, befell that Pelagian Julian, who either neglected to incorporate himself into the judgment of his colleagues, or presumed to set himself apart from their body. But now it is time that we bring forward the promised example, where and in what manner the opinions of the holy Fathers were gathered together, so that in accordance with them, by the decree and authority of a Council, the rule of ecclesiastical faith might be fixed. And that this may be done the more conveniently, let this here be the close of the present Commonitory, so that the rest which follows we may take up from another beginning. The intervening portion has been lost, and nothing more remains of it than the final part, that is, the recapitulation alone, which is also appended below. XXIX.

Since these things are so, it is now time that we recapitulate at the end of this second Commonitory the things which have been said in these two Commonitories. We said above that it has always been, and is even today, the custom of Catholics to prove the true faith in these two ways: first by the authority of the divine Canon, and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church; not because the Canon alone is not of itself sufficient for all things, but because most people, interpreting the divine words according to their own private judgment, conceive various opinions and errors, and therefore it is necessary that the understanding of the heavenly Scripture be directed according to the one rule of the ecclesiastical sense, especially in those questions upon which the foundations of the whole Catholic doctrine rest.

Likewise we said that within the Church herself the consent both of universality and of antiquity must equally be regarded, lest either we be torn away from the integrity of unity into the part of schism, or be cast headlong from the religion of antiquity into the novelties of heresies. Likewise we said that in this very antiquity of the Church two things must be most earnestly and diligently observed, to which all who would not be heretics ought thoroughly to cleave: first, if anything was decreed of old by all the priests of the Catholic Church through the authority of a universal Council;

and then, if any new question should arise where this was by no means to be found, recourse must be had to the opinions of the holy Fathers, namely of those who, each remaining in their own times and places within the unity of communion and faith, had shown themselves approved teachers; and whatever they were found to have held with one mind and one consent, that should be judged, without any scruple, to be the true and Catholic teaching of the Church. And lest we should seem to set this forth more by our own presumption than by ecclesiastical authority, we adduced the example of the holy Council which about three years ago was celebrated in Asia at Ephesus, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus:

where, when it was being debated concerning the fixing of the rules of faith, lest perchance some profane novelty in the manner of the perfidy of Ariminum should there creep in, it seemed to all the priests, who had assembled there to the number of about two hundred, a most Catholic, most faithful, and best course of action that the opinions of the holy Fathers be brought forth into the midst, of whom it was established that some had been martyrs, others confessors, but all of them Catholic priests, and had so remained; namely, that duly and solemnly, out of their consent and decree, the religion of the ancient doctrine might be confirmed, and the blasphemy of profane novelty condemned.

And when this had been so done, the impious Nestorius was rightly and deservedly judged to be contrary to Catholic antiquity, while the blessed Cyril was judged to be in accord with the sacrosanct antiquity. And that nothing might be lacking to the trustworthiness of the matter, we set forth both the names and the number (although we had forgotten the order) of those Fathers, according to whose mutually harmonious and concordant opinion there the utterances of the sacred law were expounded, and the rule of divine doctrine was established: whom, to confirm the memory, it is by no means superfluous to enumerate here also. XXX. These then are the men whose writings were recited in that Council, either as those of judges or as those of witnesses.

Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a most excellent teacher and a most blessed martyr. Saint Athanasius, prelate of the same city, a most faithful master and a most eminent confessor. Saint Theophilus, likewise Bishop of the same city, a man sufficiently illustrious in faith, life, and learning, whom the venerable Cyril succeeded, who now sheds lustre upon the Church of Alexandria. And lest perchance this teaching should be thought to be that of one city and province only, those luminaries of Cappadocia were also adduced: Saint Gregory, Bishop and confessor, of Nazianzus; Saint Basil, Bishop and confessor of Caesarea in Cappadocia;

Likewise the other Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, by the merit of his faith, conduct, integrity, and wisdom most worthy of his brother Basil. But lest Greece or the East alone, and not also the Western and Latin world, should be shown always to have thought thus, certain letters of Saint Felix the martyr and of Saint Julius, Bishops of the city of Rome, addressed to certain persons, were also read there. And that not only the head of the world, but also its flanks might bear witness to that judgment, there was adduced from the South the most blessed Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and martyr; from the North, Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.

These therefore are all those who at Ephesus, in the sacred number of the Decalogue, were produced as masters, counsellors, witnesses, and judges; whose doctrine that blessed Synod held, whose counsel it followed, in whose testimony it believed, to whose judgment it was obedient, and so it pronounced upon the rules of faith without weariness, without presumption, and without partiality. Although a far greater number of the elders might have been adduced, yet it was not necessary; for neither was it fitting that the time of the business be taken up with a multitude of witnesses, nor did anyone doubt that those ten had truly held no other view than all the rest of their colleagues. XXXI. After all these things, we added also the opinion of the blessed Cyril, which is contained in the ecclesiastical acts themselves.

For when the letter of Saint Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, had been read—who aimed at and prayed for nothing else than that, novelty being overthrown, antiquity might be defended—then Bishop Cyril spoke forth and made his pronouncement. And it seems not out of place to insert this here also. For he says, at the end of the acts: 'And this letter,' says he, 'which has been read, of the venerable and most religious Bishop of Carthage, Capreolus, shall be inserted into the record of the proceedings concerning the faith; whose opinion is plain. For he wishes the doctrines of the ancient faith to be confirmed, but novel things, superfluously invented and impiously promulgated, to be rejected and condemned.' All the Bishops acclaimed: 'These are the voices of all, this we all say, this is the wish of all.'

And what after all were the voices of all, or the wishes of all, except that what had been handed down from of old should be held fast, and what had lately been newly invented should be hissed off and rejected?

After these things we marvelled and proclaimed how great was the humility and holiness of that Council, that so great a number of priests, almost for the greater part Metropolitans, of such erudition and such learning that nearly all of them could dispute about doctrines—and for this very reason the assembly itself, gathered into one, might seem to have the confidence to dare and to decree something of its own—yet introduced nothing new, presumed nothing, arrogated nothing whatever to themselves; but in every way took care lest they should hand down to posterity anything which they themselves had not received from the Fathers; and not only ordered the matter well in the present, but also furnished examples for those to come, namely that they too should cherish the doctrines of sacred antiquity, but condemn the inventions of profane novelty.

We also inveighed against the wicked presumption of Nestorius, in that he boasted that he was the first and only one to understand Holy Scripture, and that all those had been ignorant who before him, endowed with the office of teaching, had treated of the divine oracles—namely all the priests, all the confessors and martyrs, of whom some had expounded the law of God, while others had assented to or believed those who expounded it—and finally even asserted that the whole Church was in error, even now, and had always been in error, which, as it seemed to him, had both followed and continued to follow ignorant and erroneous teachers. XXXII.

Although all these things were abundantly and superabundantly sufficient to overwhelm and extinguish any profane novelties whatsoever, yet, lest anything should seem lacking to so great a fullness, we added at the very end the twofold authority of the Apostolic See: one, namely, of the holy Pope Sixtus, who now venerably gives lustre to the Roman Church, the other of his predecessor of blessed memory, Pope Celestine, which we have judged it necessary to insert here also. The holy Pope Xystus, then, says in the letter which he sent concerning the case of Nestorius to the Bishop of Antioch: 'Therefore,' says he, 'since, as the Apostle says, the faith is one which has manifestly prevailed, let us believe the things to be said and say the things to be held.' What at last are those things to be believed and said? He continues, and says:

'Let nothing further,' says he, 'be permitted to novelty, because nothing ought to be added to antiquity. Let the clear faith and belief of the elders be disturbed by no admixture of filth.' Wholly apostolic: that he should adorn the belief of the elders with the light of clearness, but should describe novel profanities by an admixture of filth. But Saint Pope Celestine likewise, and with the same opinion. For he says in the letter which he sent to the priests of Gaul, censuring their connivance because, abandoning the ancient faith in silence, they suffered profane novelties to rise up: 'Deservedly,' says he, 'the cause concerns us, if by silence we foster error. Therefore let men of this sort be rebuked; let it not be free for them to have speech according to their own will.'

Here someone might perhaps doubt who those are whom he forbids to have free speech according to their will: the preachers of antiquity, or the inventors of novelty. Let him himself say it; let him himself resolve the doubt of his readers. For he continues: 'Let it cease,' says he, 'if the matter is so' (that is, if it is so as certain persons complain to me about your cities and provinces, that you make them consent to certain novelties by a harmful dissimulation), 'let novelty therefore cease,' says he, 'if the matter is so, to assail antiquity.' This therefore was the blessed opinion of the blessed Celestine: that antiquity should not cease to overwhelm novelty, but rather that novelty should cease to assail antiquity. XXXIII.

Whoever opposes these apostolic and Catholic decrees, must of necessity first of all insult the memory of Saint Celestine, who ordained that novelty should cease to assail antiquity; then mock at the definitions of Saint Xystus, who decreed that nothing further be permitted to novelty, because nothing ought to be added to antiquity; and moreover despise the decrees of the blessed Cyril, who with great proclamation praised the zeal of the venerable Capreolus, in that he desired the doctrines of the ancient faith to be confirmed, but novel inventions to be condemned; and let him also trample upon the Council of Ephesus, that is, the judgments of the holy Bishops of almost the whole East, to whom it pleased by divine inspiration to decree that nothing else should be believed by posterity except what the sacred and self-consistent antiquity of the holy Fathers in Christ had held; who also, crying out and acclaiming, testified with one mouth that these were the voices of all, that this was the wish of all, that this was the judgment of all;

so that, just as nearly all the heretics before Nestorius, despising antiquity and asserting novelty, had been condemned, so Nestorius himself also, the author of novelty and the assailant of antiquity, should be condemned. If their consent—inspired by the gift of sacrosanct and heavenly grace—displeases anyone, what else follows but that he should assert that the profanity of Nestorius was not justly condemned? And at the last he would also despise the whole Church of Christ, and her masters the Apostles and prophets, but above all the blessed Apostle Paul, as if they were a kind of refuse: the Church, because she never departed from the religion of the faith once delivered to her to be cherished and cultivated; and Paul, because he wrote:

'O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding the profane novelties of words'; and likewise: 'If anyone should announce to you anything beyond what you have received, let him be anathema.' But if neither apostolic definitions nor ecclesiastical decrees are to be violated—by which, according to the sacrosanct consent of universality and antiquity, all heretics have always, and at the last Pelagius, Celestius, and Nestorius, been justly and deservedly condemned—then surely it is necessary for all Catholics henceforth, who strive to prove themselves the lawful sons of mother Church, that they cleave to, be glued to, and die in the holy faith of the holy Fathers; but that they detest, shudder at, pursue, and persecute the profane novelties of the profane.

These are roughly the things which, having been more amply discussed in the two Commonitories, have now been compressed somewhat more briefly under the law of recapitulation; so that my memory, for the aiding of which I composed these things, may both be refreshed by the diligence of reminding, and not be overwhelmed by the tedium of prolixity. The island Lerina or Lirinus, which lies at Latitude 43° 30' 6", Longitude 24° 42' 55". Lerina today bears the name of Saint Honoratus, who was the author and founder of the once most celebrated monastery of all Gaul on that island. Therefore on that island, besides the monastery, there was some dwelling-place of secular men. He further called the more remote little farmstead Lirinus, because, since the island was in the Mediterranean Sea, it was evident that it was remote from cities and towns.

In Vincentius's day the word Commonitorium was in use: at one time to signify instructions given in writing to legates—as the Commonitorium given by Theodosius to Count Elpidius setting out for Ephesus to the Synod, and another consigned by Zosimus to Faustinus when he was sent into Africa. More frequently, however, it was taken for a directive prescribed by one giving a command, to be carried out—which is clear from the Letter of Pope Innocent on behalf of John Chrysostom. But here, as Baluzius rightly observes in his notes, it signifies that kind of writing such as memoranda are, for the relieving of the memory.

The Fathers used the property of the Catholic name to refute the heretics, since according to the predictions of the Prophets the Church was to be spread throughout the world, and not to be confined into the corner of some small region or into a particle of the earth; otherwise, as Optatus rightly argues in Book 2 On the Schism of the Donatists, no. 1: 'Where will be the property of the Catholic name, since it is called Catholic for this reason, that it is reasonable and everywhere diffused?' Because this name is honorable and embraces the hope of salvation, the heretics envy it to us and try to snatch it away, just as once the apostate Julian envied the Christians their name. But that it befits the sons of the Roman Church, Augustine acutely demonstrates from the very mind of the heretics, in the book of the Unfinished Work, no. 75:

'The Arians,' says he, 'call the Athanasians or Homousians Catholics, and so do not other heretics. But you are called Pelagians not only by the Catholics, but also by the heretics who dissent from you, and even by those like you: just as the Arians are so named not only by the Catholic Church, but also by the heresies. You alone, however, call us Traducians, just as those call us Homousians, as the Donatists call us Macarians, as the Manichaeans call us Pharisees, and as the other heretics call us by various names. Nor ought it to seem strange that the new heretics impose a new name upon the Catholics from whom they go out (which has pleased even the vanity of the heretics of our age). For others also did this, when they likewise went out.'

The ancient Royal Codex has 'the decrees of a Universal Council.' Baluzius. Vincentius here understands Donatus the Great, after whom that the Donatists were so named is proved by the clear testimony of Optatus in the Life of Saint Possidius; let the reader consult that passage. It must be noted, however, that it was a long age after the schism was introduced that the followers of Donatus's party were named after him, since at first they were called of the party of Majorinus. Hence in the report of the Proconsul Anulinus to Constantine it is read: 'A document concerning the crimes of Caecilian, of the Catholic Church, handed over by the party of Majorinus.' Similarly Augustine, when speaking of the document, says it was carried off by the party of Majorinus. But because around the year of Christ 370 it was already called the party of Donatus;

'as though indeed,' says Optatus, 'he had divided the people with God, so that he might fearlessly call it his own party'—on this account that holy man, in Book 3 On the Schism of the Donatists, no. 3, discoursing of the document which Capito, Nasucius, Dignus, and the other Bishops gave to Constantine, calls them of the party of Donatus, and not of Majorinus, perhaps substituting the better-known name for the ancient one. Yet frankly we must nonetheless confess the lapse of Optatus: because from such a document he infers that Donatus the Great was proscribed at Rome by Miltiades and by the Council celebrated by the same; whereas in the Conference the Catholic Prelates conceded that Donatus had been condemned at Casae Nigrae. See Augustine in the Breviary of the Conference of the third day, chapters 12 and 17, and in the book of Retractations, chapter 21.

In the fourth century, on the testimony of Optatus, the number of Catholics in Africa was greater, since in Book 2, no. 1, he scarcely concedes a particle to the Donatists, saying: 'So that the Church may be able to exist among you in a particle of Africa, in the corner of a small region, shall it not exist among us in another part of Africa?' But as the same century was passing and declining, the Schismatics were far more numerous, as Possidius reports in the Life of Augustine, chapter 7, when he says: 'Through that holy man the Catholic Church in Africa began to lift up its head, which... lay seduced and oppressed, while the party of Donatus rebaptized the greater multitude of the Africans.'