Testing New Teaching by the Agreement of the Fathers

And here I see that, as a necessary follow-up to what has gone before, I ought to show by examples how the profane novelties of heretics may be detected and condemned by bringing together the agreed opinions of the ancient teachers. Yet in searching out this ancient consent of the holy fathers, we are to spend our pains not on every minor question of the divine law, but only, or at least chiefly, where the rule of faith is concerned. Nor is this way of dealing with heresy to be used always or in every case. It is only for heresies that are new and recent, and at their first appearance, before they have had time to corrupt the rules of the ancient faith, and before they try, as the poison spreads and seeps further, to corrupt the writings of the ancients. Heresies that are already widely spread and of long standing are by no means to be dealt with in this way, since through the passage of time they have long had the chance to corrupt the truth. And so the more ancient schisms or heresies we ought either to refute, if need be, by the authority of the Scriptures alone, or at any rate to avoid, as having long ago been convicted and condemned by universal councils of the catholic priesthood. [a]

So, as soon as the corruption of any mischievous error begins to break out, and to defend itself by pilfering certain passages of Scripture and explaining them fraudulently and deceitfully, the opinions of the ancients on the interpretation of the canon must at once be gathered. By them the novelty, and so the profaneness, whatever it may be, can be exposed beyond any doubt and condemned without any evasion. But only the opinions of those fathers are to be brought in for comparison who lived and taught holily, wisely, and steadfastly in the catholic faith and communion, and were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to die a blessed death for Christ. Even these we are to believe on this condition: only that is to be counted beyond doubt, certain, and settled which all of them, or most of them, have supported and confirmed openly, often, and persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a council of teachers in agreement, all receiving, holding, and handing on the same doctrine. But whatever a teacher holds apart from all, or contrary to all, be he holy and learned, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and kept separate from the authority of common, public, general conviction. Otherwise, after the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, we would reject the ancient truth of the universal creed and follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly devised error of one man. [b]

So that no one may rashly think that the holy and catholic consent of these blessed fathers may be despised, the apostle says in the first letter to the Corinthians, “God has placed some in the church: first apostles,” of whom he himself was one; “second prophets,” such as Agabus, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles; “then teachers,” who are now called preachers and expositors. The same apostle sometimes also calls them “prophets,” because through them the mysteries of the prophets are opened to the people. Whoever, then, despises these men, who were appointed by God in his church in their several times and places, when they are of one mind in Christ in interpreting some point of catholic doctrine, despises not man but God. And so that no one should depart from their unity in the truth, the same apostle earnestly pleads, “I beg you, brothers, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But if anyone dissents from their unanimous decision, let him listen to the words of the same apostle: “God is not the God of dissension but of peace”; that is, not of the one who departs from the unity of consent, but of those who stand firm in the peace of consent. “As,” he goes on, “I teach in all the churches of the saints,” that is, of catholics; and these churches are churches of the saints for this reason, that they continue steadfast in the communion of the faith. [c]

And so that no one, disregarding everyone else, should arrogantly claim that he alone is to be listened to and he alone believed, the apostle goes on to say, “Did the word of God go out from you, or did it come to you only?” And so that this should not be thought lightly said, he continues, “If anyone seems to be a prophet or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the Lord’s commands.” As to this, unless a man is a prophet or a spiritual person, that is, a master in spiritual matters, let him be as careful as possible to keep fairness and unity, so as neither to prefer his own opinions to everyone else’s nor to depart from the belief of the whole body. Whoever ignores this command will himself be ignored. That is, whoever either does not learn what he does not know, or treats with contempt what he does know, will be ignored: he will be judged unworthy to be ranked by God with those who are united to one another by faith and made equal to one another by humility. I cannot imagine a more terrible evil than that. Yet this, in keeping with the apostle’s threat, is what we see has happened to Julian the Pelagian, who either neglected to join himself to the belief of his fellow Christians or presumed to cut himself off from it. [f]

But it is now time to bring forward the example we promised: where and how the statements of the holy fathers were gathered together, so that in accordance with them, by the decree and authority of a council, the rule of the church’s faith might be settled. So that this may be done more conveniently, let this present Commonitory end here, so that what is to follow may begin afresh. [h]