Saint Vincent of Lerins
Vincent initially served as a soldier but left that life to become a monk on the island of Lerins off the southern French coast near Cannes. He was ordained there and about AD 434 wrote these Commonitories (or Reminders). St Eucherius of Lyons calls him a holy man, conspicuous for eloquence and knowledge.
St Vincent attempted, as did St John Cassian, to find a way that avoided the extremes both of Pelagius and of Augustine. His Commonitories offer a guide to distinguish the apostolic faith from innovation: The maxim now known as the Vincentian Canon: Wherever there is consensus among the fathers, then “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” is the Faith the Church shares in common.
Note that in Vincent’s day, in the fifth century, catholic had not yet become a regional or institutional name. From the Greek kata holos (according to the whole), it means the same throughout, universal, complete, lacking nothing.
The Commonitories
1
I, the Pilgrim, the least of God’s servants, call to mind the teaching of Scripture: “Ask your fathers, and they will tell you; your elders, and they will declare it to you.” I also remember the counsel to listen to the wise and the command not to forget their instruction, but to keep it in the heart.
Moved by these words, I am persuaded that, with the Lord’s help, it is both useful and, given my own limitations, necessary to write down the truths I have received from the holy Fathers. By setting them in writing, I can return to them often and make up for the weakness of my memory. I undertake this work not only because it may bear fruit, but also because the present time and circumstances make it fitting.
Time, which wears away all human things, urges us to use it well so that we may gain what profits eternal life. This is especially pressing in view of the coming judgment of God, which calls for greater seriousness in religion, and because of the subtle craft of new heretics, which demands careful attention.
The place in which I live also supports this purpose. I have withdrawn from the noise and crowds of cities and now dwell in the quiet of a monastery, in a remote dwelling. Here I can follow the Psalmist’s command: “Be still, and know that I am God.”
This life suits my aim. Once I was caught in the many and troubled storms of worldly affairs, but now, under Christ’s guidance, I have come at last to the harbor of religion, a place of safety. There, freed from pride and vanity, and seeking to please God through humility, I hope to escape not only the dangers of this life but also the punishment of the life to come.
Therefore, in the Lord’s name, I will begin the work before me: to set down faithfully, not as an original author but as a witness, what has been handed down by our forefathers and entrusted to us. In doing so, I will follow this rule: I will not attempt to cover everything that could be said, but only what is necessary. I will not write in an ornate or exact style, but in plain language, so that much may be suggested rather than fully explained. Let those who have the skill or duty pursue elegance and precision.
For myself, it is enough that this work serves as a reminder—more accurately, a guard against forgetfulness. With the Lord’s help, I will revise and improve it day by day, adding what I recall and making it more complete over time. I say this at the beginning so that, if what I write should come into the hands of holy men, they will not judge it too quickly, but will remember that it is intended to be corrected and perfected.
2
3
When a portion of the Church severs itself from the communion of the universal faith, a Catholic Christian would naturally prioritize the well-being of the entire body over the corruption of a single, diseased part. Should a new and dangerous doctrine threaten to infect the whole Church, rather than succumb to the novelty, the faithful Christian will seek refuge in antiquity, for time has proven that the ancient faith cannot be easily deceived by novelties. However, if even within antiquity itself, an error is discovered among a few individuals, or perhaps within a city or a province, then it becomes incumbent upon the Christian to defer to the pronouncements of an ancient Ecumenical Council, viewing them as superior to the rash judgments of a select few. But what if an error arises that no such council has addressed? In such a case, the Christian must diligently compare and consult the writings of the ancient authorities. These are individuals who, despite living in different times and places, remained united in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church, and whose wisdom is acknowledged and respected. Ultimately, any doctrine that these approved authorities have held, written, and taught consistently, openly, and with unwavering consent – not just by one or two, but by all – is what the faithful Christian must embrace with absolute certainty and without hesitation.
4
To make this clearer, we should explain it with specific examples and speak about it more fully. Otherwise, if we try to be too brief, we may pass over important points.
In the time of Donatus, after whom the Donatists were named, many people in Africa rushed into serious error. They forgot their faith and loyalty to the Church, and followed the reckless teaching of one man instead. Only those who rejected this division and remained united with the universal Church stayed safe in the true faith. They left a strong example for later generations: the health of the whole Church must be preferred over the error of one man, or even a small group.
The same thing happened during the Arian crisis. This error spread widely, almost throughout the whole world. Many bishops, especially in the Latin Church, were confused – some misled by force, others by deceit – and could not clearly see what should be done. Yet those who truly loved Christ held firmly to the ancient faith and avoided the error.
This period clearly showed how dangerous new doctrines can be. The damage was not small. It affected everything: families, friendships, cities, nations, and even the Roman Empire itself.
Once this Arian teaching took hold, it caused widespread chaos. It influenced rulers and leaders and disrupted both public and private life, sacred and secular alike. It ignored truth and justice and acted with unchecked power. Many suffered: women were abused, monasteries destroyed, clergy expelled or punished, and many believers were imprisoned, exiled, or left to suffer in harsh conditions. They were driven from their homes and forced to live in deserts and wilderness, enduring hunger, thirst, and hardship.
What caused all this? It was the replacement of true doctrine with human inventions. Ancient teaching was overturned by new ideas. The traditions of the fathers were rejected. The established faith was torn apart. All this happened because people allowed a desire for novelty to go beyond the limits of the true and unchanging faith.
5
Some may say that these accusations come from a dislike of new ideas and an excessive attachment to tradition. If anyone thinks this, let him at least listen to the testimony of the blessed Ambrose. Speaking about the troubles of his time, he says that the Church has already suffered enough, through bloodshed, persecution, and the exile of priests, because of those who have corrupted the faith. It is clear, he says, that those who abandon the true faith cannot remain secure.
In another place, Ambrose urges us to follow the teachings of our predecessors and not to cross the boundaries they have set. The faith, he says, is like something sacred and sealed. No one has the right to open or alter it except Christ himself. Those who were forced to tamper with it later repented and restored it, while those who refused to change it proved themselves faithful, even unto death. Therefore, how can we reject the faith of those whose victory we honor?
We agree with this, and we honor and admire it. Who would not want to follow such people? They stood firm for the faith handed down to them. No threats, rewards, or dangers could move them: Not fear of death, not pressure from rulers, not anything human or spiritual.
Because of their steadfastness, God rewarded them greatly. Through them, the Church was restored. What had been destroyed was rebuilt. People who had fallen away were brought back to life. The honor of the priesthood was restored. Errors and false teachings were washed away. When heresy had spread almost everywhere, God used them to bring the Church back from error to truth, from confusion to clarity, from darkness to light.
We should also note something important about their example. When they defended the faith, they did not defend a small group or a private opinion. They defended the whole Church. They did not support the uncertain ideas of a few individuals or a single region. Instead, they held firmly to the teachings handed down by the universal Church and the apostles.
Because of this, they chose to suffer rather than betray the faith that had been believed everywhere and always. For this reason, they are rightly honored not only as confessors of the faith, but as the greatest among them.
6
The example of these holy men is great and clearly inspired by God. It should be remembered and reflected on constantly by every true Christian. Like a lamp shining with the light of the Holy Spirit, they showed future generations how bold new errors can be defeated by holding firmly to the authority of ancient tradition.
This is not something new. Throughout the history of the Church, those who are most devoted to the faith are also the quickest to oppose new and harmful teachings. There are many examples of this, but one clear case comes from the Apostolic See, showing how strongly the successors of the apostles have defended the faith they received.
At one time, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, introduced a new teaching: that baptism should be repeated. This went against Scripture, the practice of the universal Church, and the traditions of the Fathers. This idea caused great harm. It encouraged error among heretics and even confused some faithful Christians.
Many people opposed this new teaching. Bishops everywhere resisted it with zeal. Among them, Pope Stephen stood out as the leading voice. Because of his authority and his devotion, he firmly rejected the innovation. In a letter to Africa, he gave this rule: “Let there be no innovation; only what has been handed down.”
He understood that true faith does not allow change in what has been received. What we have received from our fathers must be faithfully passed on. We are not meant to shape religion according to our own wishes, but to follow it as it has been given to us. It is not our role to invent new teachings, but to preserve what we have inherited.
In the end, the outcome was clear and familiar: The ancient teaching was preserved, and the new idea was rejected.
Some might think that this innovation failed because it lacked strong support. But that is not true. It had intelligent defenders, persuasive speakers, many followers, and arguments that seemed convincing. It even claimed support from Scripture, though Scripture was misinterpreted. Yet despite all this, it failed because it was new.
So what became of the decision made in Africa? Nothing at all. It was set aside completely, as if it had never happened.
What a striking reversal! Those who first held the idea are still considered faithful Christians, but those who later defended it are judged as heretics. The original teachers are accepted, but their followers are condemned.
For no one would doubt that the great bishop and martyr Cyprian, along with his companions, reigns with Christ. But those who later used his authority to justify repeating baptism, such as the Donatists, are rightly condemned for their error.
7
This condemnation seems to have been guided by God, especially to expose those who try to disguise heresy under a different name. Such people often take the writings of ancient authors, especially passages that are unclear, and twist them to make it seem as though these writers agree with them. In this way, they try to claim that their teaching is not new, and that others before them have held the same views.
This behavior is deeply wrong for two reasons. First, they are willing to lead others into error. Second, they misuse the reputation of holy men. Like someone stirring up dying embers into flame, they revive and spread what should have been left alone. In doing this, they act like Ham, who exposed his father Noah’s shame instead of covering it. In contrast, Noah’s other sons showed respect by covering him and refusing to expose his weakness. Because of this, they were blessed, while Ham brought a curse upon himself and his descendants.
Returning to the main point: we must strongly fear the sin of corrupting the faith. This is a serious offense, condemned both by the Church and by the apostles.
The apostle Paul speaks very strongly against those who abandon the true faith. He describes people who quickly turn away from the gospel to false teachings. They seek out teachers who tell them what they want to hear. They reject the truth and follow false ideas. They deceive others with smooth words, causing division and confusion. They lead people astray, spread empty talk, and misuse religion for personal gain. Their teaching spreads like a disease, corrupting everything it touches.
But Paul also says that such people will not succeed in the end. Their foolishness will be made clear to everyone.
8
Certain teachers went from place to place, spreading their paid and false teachings. When they came to Galatia, the people listened to them. They turned away from the truth and rejected the teaching they had received from the apostles. Instead, they embraced new and corrupt doctrines.
In response, the apostle spoke with great authority and seriousness. He said, “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach a different gospel than the one we gave you, let that person be anathema.”
Why does he say “we” instead of “I”? He means not only himself, but all the apostles – Peter, Andrew, John, and the rest. Even if any of them were to teach something different, they must be rejected. This is a very strong statement. He does not spare even himself or the other apostles, because he is determined to protect the original faith.
He goes even further. He includes angels: “Even if an angel from heaven…” He does not mean that angels can fall into error, but he is making the strongest possible point. No one, no matter who they are, has the authority to change the faith that was given once for all.
Someone might think he spoke too harshly at first. But he repeats the warning again with even greater emphasis: “As we said before, so I say again: if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be anathema.”
He does not say such a person should be accepted or welcomed. Instead, he says they must be separated and excluded, so that their false teaching does not spread and harm the faithful.
9
Someone might say that this warning was meant only for the Galatians. If that were true, then the other commands in the same letter would also apply only to them – for example, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit,” and “Do not seek empty glory or envy one another.” But this is clearly not the case. These moral commands apply to all Christians.
If that is true, then the warning about false teaching also applies to everyone. Just as it is wrong for anyone to act with pride or envy, it is also wrong for anyone to accept a different gospel than the one taught by the universal Church.
Perhaps someone will say that the warning against false teaching applied only in the past, not today. But if that were so, then the command to live by the Spirit would also apply only to the past, which would be absurd and harmful. Therefore, both the moral commands and the warnings about preserving the faith apply to all times.
So it follows clearly: It has never been lawful, is not lawful now, and will never be lawful to teach anything different from what Christians have received. And it has always been necessary, and still is, to reject anyone who teaches something new.
Given this, who would dare to preach a different doctrine from what the Church teaches? And who would be so unstable as to accept such a teaching?
The apostle Paul, chosen by God, teacher of the nations, and messenger to the whole world, repeats this warning everywhere in his letters: “If anyone preaches a new doctrine, let him be anathema.”
Yet some people, like the Pelagians, say the opposite. They tell Christians to follow their new ideas, reject what they once believed, and abandon the faith handed down by their ancestors. They urge people to replace the ancient teaching with something new.
But what they offer is so full of pride and arrogance that it is hard even to speak of it, let alone defend or refute it without concern.
10
Someone may ask: Why does God allow respected and influential people in the Church to teach new and false doctrines? This is an important question. It should be answered carefully: Not by personal opinion, but by Scripture and the teaching of the Church.
To understand this, we can look to Moses. He explains why even learned and respected teachers, sometimes called “prophets,” are allowed to introduce new ideas. In Scripture, these are described as leading people to “strange gods,” because heretics treat their own ideas with the same devotion that pagans give to their idols.
Moses writes in Deuteronomy: “If a prophet or dreamer arises among you,” that is, a teacher who seems to speak with authority, “and gives a sign or wonder, and it comes to pass,” meaning that he appears convincing and credible, even showing knowledge or insight that impresses others. This describes influential figures whose followers believe them to be wise or even inspired.
But then the same person says, “Let us follow other gods you have not known.” In other words, he introduces new and unfamiliar teachings. To “serve” these new gods means to accept and follow these false ideas.
What does Moses say in response? “Do not listen to that prophet.” Why does God allow such a teacher to appear in the first place? Moses gives the answer: “The Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love Him with all your heart.”
This makes the reason clear. God allows such situations as a test.
It is a serious and difficult test. It is especially hard when the person introducing error is someone you once trusted, such as a teacher you admired, respected, and loved. Because of that respect, it is not easy to recognize his error or to reject him. Yet this is exactly the kind of test that reveals true faith.
11
Someone may ask us to explain the words of Moses by giving examples from Church history. This is a fair request, and we can answer it easily.
Let us begin with a recent and clear example. Consider what happened with Nestorius. At first, he seemed like a faithful teacher, but he suddenly turned and began to harm the Church, like a wolf among sheep. Many people still trusted him and did not realize the danger, which made them more vulnerable.
Who would have suspected him? He had been chosen by the emperor and was highly respected by the clergy. He was loved by many and taught Scripture publicly every day. He also spoke strongly against other heresies. Because of this, people assumed his teaching was sound. But in reality, he used this reputation to introduce his own error. This is exactly the kind of test Moses described: God allows such things to reveal whether we truly love Him.
Now, leaving aside Nestorius, who impressed people more than he truly helped them, we can look at others who also became a serious trial for the Church.
One example is Photinus in Pannonia. He served as a priest in the city of Sirmium and was widely approved at first. But suddenly, like the false teacher described by Moses, he began to lead people into new and strange teachings they had never heard before.
What made this especially dangerous was his ability. He was intelligent, eloquent, and highly educated. He wrote and argued skillfully in both Greek and Latin. Because of this, he was very persuasive.
Yet the faithful people under his care remained watchful. They remembered the warning of Scripture. Even though they admired him, they recognized the danger and began to avoid him. They turned away from him as from a wolf, though they had once followed him as their shepherd.
This example shows how serious this kind of trial can be. It also teaches us to be especially careful in guarding the faith.
Another example is Apollinaris. His teaching caused confusion and division among his followers. They were torn between loyalty to the Church and loyalty to their teacher, and they did not know what to do.
Someone might think he was not very important. But in fact, he was highly respected and influential. His intelligence and learning were exceptional. He wrote many works defending the faith and refuting errors. One of his major works, in many volumes, strongly opposed the philosopher Porphyry.
He had every quality that could have made him one of the greatest teachers of the Church. But in the end, his desire to introduce something new led him into error. This corrupted his work and turned his teaching into a trial for the Church instead of a benefit.
12
Someone may ask for an explanation of the heresies just mentioned – those of Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus. Strictly speaking, this is not our main purpose. Our goal is not to examine each error in detail, but to give examples that show how Moses’ teaching applies: when a respected teacher in the Church introduces a new doctrine, God allows it as a test of our faith.
Still, it is useful to give a brief summary of their views.
First, Photinus taught that God is one in a simple sense, as the Jews understood Him. He denied the full doctrine of the Trinity. He rejected the existence of the Word and the Holy Spirit as distinct Persons. He also taught that Christ was only a man, born of Mary. Because of this, he insisted that only God the Father should be worshiped, and that Christ should be honored only as a human being. This is the teaching of Photinus.
Next, Apollinaris claimed to agree with the Church about the unity of God, but his teaching about Christ was flawed. He said that Christ did not have a true human soul, or at least not a rational one. He also taught that Christ’s body did not come from the Virgin Mary, but descended from heaven. At times, he said this body was eternal; at other times, that it was formed from the divine nature. He denied that Christ has two distinct natures, divine and human. Instead, he taught that the divine nature was somehow divided, with part remaining God and part becoming flesh. In this way, he contradicted the true teaching that Christ is one person with two distinct natures. This is the doctrine of Apollinaris.
Finally, Nestorius took the opposite error. While claiming to preserve the distinction of Christ’s two natures, he divided Christ into two persons. In effect, he taught that there were two Christs: One divine and one human. Because of this, he refused to call Mary “Mother of God” (Theotokos), and instead called her “Mother of Christ,” as if she gave birth only to the human Christ.
Even when Nestorius speaks of one Christ, we should be cautious. Either he is using careful language to hide his true teaching, or he believes that the two persons were only later united. In that case, Christ would have first been only a man, and only afterward joined to the divine Word. This would mean that, at one time, Christ was no different from any other human being – an idea that contradicts the true faith.
13
In these ways, Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus oppose the true faith. Photinus denies the Trinity. Apollinaris teaches that the Word can change and denies that Christ has both a true divine and a true human nature, even claiming that Christ lacked a rational human soul. Nestorius teaches that there are two Christs, or at least that there once were.
But the Church holds the true teaching about God and about Christ. It does not fall into error in either the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. The Church worships one God in three Persons, equal in glory and majesty. It also confesses one Christ, both fully God and fully man.
The Church teaches that Christ is one Person, but has two natures. There are two natures because the Word of God does not change into flesh. Yet there is only one Person, so that we do not divide Christ into two Sons.
To explain this more clearly:
In God, there is one substance but three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are distinct Persons, but they share the same divine nature.
In Christ, there are two natures, divine and human, but only one Person. The divine nature is from the Father, and the human nature from the Virgin Mary. These two are not separate persons, but united in one and the same Person, Christ.
This can be compared to a human being. A person has both a soul and a body, but is still one person, not two. In the same way, Christ is one Person with two distinct natures.
So, Christ is not divided into two beings. He is one and the same, God and man together. He is eternal as God and born in time as man. He is equal to the Father in his divinity and shares our human condition through his humanity.
His humanity is complete, including both body and rational soul. His divinity and humanity are united, not mixed or confused, but joined in one Person.
This union does not change either nature. The divine remains divine, and the human remains human. Both continue fully and distinctly, yet are united in one Christ forever.
In the same way that a human person remains both body and soul, without one becoming the other, so also in Christ the two natures remain distinct but united in one Person.
14
When we use the word “Person” and say that God became man, we must be careful. Someone might misunderstand and think that the Word of God only appeared to be human, like an actor playing a role, rather than truly becoming man.
An actor may play many parts, such as a king or a priest, but he is not really those things. He only imitates them for a time. When the performance ends, the role ends. We must reject any idea like this about Christ. Some have wrongly taught that the Son of God only seemed to be human, but this is false.
The true faith teaches something very different. The Word of God truly became man. He did not merely appear human or imitate human actions. He acted as a man because He truly was man.
We ourselves do not imitate being human: We are human. In the same way, Peter and John were truly men, not pretending to be so. Paul did not act like an apostle, he truly was one.
So also, when the Word of God took on human nature, spoke, acted, and suffered, He was not pretending. He truly became man, while still remaining God. He did not change His divine nature, but united it with a real human nature.
This union is not an illusion or a role. It is real and permanent. Just as a human being is truly one person made of soul and body, not pretending to be so, Christ is truly one Person who is both God and man.
Therefore, we must reject the idea that Christ only appeared to be human. He did not pretend. He truly became man in reality and in substance, and He remains so forever.
15
The unity of Christ as one Person did not begin after His birth. It was already complete in the womb of the Virgin. We must be careful to confess that Christ is not only one now, but always one. It would be a serious error to say that He was once divided, two at His birth and one later, for example after His baptism.
To avoid this error, we must affirm that His human nature was united to His divine nature from the very beginning, at His conception in the Virgin’s womb, not later at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension.
Because Christ is one Person, the qualities of both His divine and human natures can be spoken of together. For this reason, Scripture says both that the Son of Man came down from heaven and that the Lord of glory was crucified. It also says that the Word of God was made and that the Wisdom of God was created, because these refer to His human nature. Likewise, His suffering, such as His hands and feet being pierced, is attributed to Him as one Person.
From this same unity, we also affirm that the Word of God was truly born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore, it is right to call her “Mother of God” (Theotokos). This is not because she gave birth to a mere man who later became God, as some falsely claim. Rather, she bore the one Person who is both God and man from the beginning.
So Mary is rightly and truly called the Mother of God, because in her womb the mystery took place in which the Word became flesh. Through this union, the one who is God became truly man, and the man is truly God, without division, but in one Person.
16
Now, to help us remember what has been said about these heresies and the true faith, let us briefly review it again. Repeating it will make it clearer and help us hold it more firmly.
Let Photinus be condemned, because he denies the full doctrine of the Trinity and teaches that Christ is only a man. Let Apollinaris be condemned, because he claims that Christ’s divinity was changed and denies that Christ has a complete human nature. Let Nestorius be condemned, because he denies that God was born of the Virgin, divides Christ into two, and in doing so undermines the unity of God.
But let the catholic Church be blessed. She worships one God in three Persons, equal in glory and united in one divine nature. She preserves both the unity of God and the distinction of Persons without confusion or division.
Blessed is the Church because she teaches that Christ has two complete natures, divine and human, but is one Person. She does not divide Christ into two persons, nor does she mix the two natures into one.
Blessed is the Church because she teaches that God truly became man: Not by changing His nature, and not as an appearance, but in reality, in a true and lasting union.
Blessed is the Church because she understands that, through this unity, the qualities of both natures can be spoken of together. Thus, she confesses that the Son of Man came down from heaven, and that God suffered and was crucified. She proclaims that the Son of God is also the Son of the Virgin.
Blessed and worthy of all honor is this confession of faith, which glorifies the one Lord God in the fullness of the Trinity. For this reason, the Church firmly holds that Christ is one Person, so that we do not go beyond the mystery of the Trinity by dividing Him.
This concludes this brief explanation. God willing, we will return to the subject and explain it more fully another time. Now let us continue with our main topic.
17
We have said that when a teacher falls into error, this becomes a test for the people; and the more learned the teacher, the greater the test. This is shown both by scripture and by examples from Church history. Many who were once considered sound in the faith later fell into error or even started new heresies. This is an important lesson and must be remembered often, so that Christians learn to follow the Church, not to abandon the faith because of a teacher.
Among all such examples, none is greater than that of Origen. He had so many excellent qualities that anyone might easily trust everything he said. His life was disciplined, humble, patient, and strong. He came from a noble family marked by martyrdom. He endured hardship and poverty for the sake of Christ and was even considered a confessor.
He was also extraordinarily gifted. His intellect was powerful and sharp. His learning was vast, both in theology and in other subjects. He mastered Greek and even learned Hebrew. His speech was clear and persuasive. He could explain difficult ideas with ease. He wrote extensively, more than almost anyone else.
He had many followers, including teachers, priests, confessors, and martyrs. People from all over came to learn from him. Many respected him almost as a prophet or master. Even powerful figures admired him.
All these qualities made him admirable, but they also made his case more dangerous. Because of his greatness, many were willing to trust him completely. Some even preferred to be wrong with him rather than right without him.
As a result, many were led into error. Not because of his strengths alone, but because his influence made the test more severe. Origen eventually relied too much on his own ideas. He neglected the simplicity of the faith, dismissed the tradition of the Church, and introduced new interpretations of Scripture.
In this way, he fulfilled the warning given in Scripture: When such a teacher arises, it is a test of faith. And indeed, it was a great test. The Church, which trusted and admired him, was slowly led away from the ancient faith toward new and dangerous speculations.
Some may say that his writings were later corrupted. This may be true, and it is widely acknowledged. But even so, the problem remains. Books attributed to him, whether authentic or not, contain harmful ideas. Because they are believed to be his, they carry authority and mislead many, even if those errors were not originally his own.
18
The same can be said about Tertullian. Just as Origen was the greatest among Greek teachers, Tertullian held a similar place among the Latin writers. Few were as learned as he was, whether in divine or human knowledge. He understood philosophy deeply and was familiar with all the major schools, their founders, their teachings, and their history.
His intellect was powerful and forceful. There was almost no difficulty he could not overcome, either by sharp reasoning or by strength of argument. His style was equally impressive. His writing was so strong and tightly argued that it often compelled agreement, even when it did not persuade. Nearly every word carried weight, and every sentence felt decisive.
His opponents knew this well, those heretics, philosophers, and critics of every kind. He refuted their errors with great force in many writings, striking them down as if with powerful blows.
Yet despite all these strengths, Tertullian did not remain firmly rooted in the true and ancient faith. He was more eloquent than faithful. In the end, he changed his faith. As Hilary later observed, his later errors weakened the authority of his earlier, sound writings.
Because of this, Tertullian became a serious test for the Church. I will not say more about him, except this: He went against the warning given in Scripture. He accepted the new and extreme teachings of Montanus and the supposed prophecies of certain women, treating them as true revelation.
In doing so, he fell under the same warning: if a teacher arises and leads people into something new, they must not be followed. For such things are allowed as a test to reveal whether we truly love God or not.
19
We must pay close attention to these many important examples from Church history. From them, we should clearly understand the rule given in Deuteronomy: When a teacher in the Church falls into error, God allows it as a test to reveal whether we truly love Him with all our heart and mind.
20
This being the case, he is the true and genuine catholic Christian who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church and the Body of Christ. He values the faith above everything else – above authority, reputation, intelligence, eloquence, or philosophy. He does not rely on any person, no matter how impressive, but remains firm in the faith. He chooses to believe only what the Church has held everywhere and from ancient times.
If he encounters a new and unfamiliar teaching, especially one that contradicts what has always been believed, he understands that it does not belong to the true faith. Rather, it is allowed as a test. As the apostle Paul says, heresies must arise so that those who are faithful may be clearly shown. In this way, it becomes evident who truly remains steady and committed to the faith.
When new errors appear, the difference between the faithful and the unfaithful becomes clear – like the difference between solid grain and light chaff. Those without firm conviction are easily carried away. Some fall away completely. Others are shaken and confused, wounded in their faith, unsure what to believe, and ashamed to return.
They are like people who have taken in poison – not enough to destroy them, but enough to weaken them. They are left in a troubled state, pulled in different directions. At one moment they accept error, and at another they fear the truth. They do not know what to follow or what to reject.
Yet even this struggle can be a form of healing, if they respond wisely. Being unsettled outside the security of the Church may lead them to recognize their error. They may let go of pride, which led them toward novelty, and return to the safety of the Church. There, they can reject the errors they accepted and receive again the pure teaching of the faith.
Let them unlearn what they learned wrongly. Let them accept as much of the Church’s teaching as they can understand – and where they do not yet understand, let them believe.
21
When I think about these things again and again, I am struck by the madness of certain people. Their thinking is blinded, and their desire for error is strong. They are not satisfied with the faith that was once delivered and handed down from the beginning. Instead, they are always searching for something new. They want to add, change, or remove things from religion, as if the teaching “what has been revealed once is enough” were not a divine rule, but something that must constantly be revised.
But Scripture clearly warns against this. It says, “Do not move the boundaries set by your fathers,” and “Do not break through the fence, or you will be bitten by a serpent.” Above all, the apostle commands: “Guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid empty and profane novelties, and false knowledge, which has led some away from the faith.”
With such strong warnings, how can anyone still resist? How can someone be so stubborn or hardened that they are not moved by such clear teaching? The command is simple: avoid new and profane teachings. This implies the opposite as well – hold firmly to what is ancient. If novelty is to be rejected, then what is old and established is to be preserved. If novelty is profane, then antiquity is sacred.
The apostle also speaks of “false knowledge.” This refers to the teachings of heretics, who disguise ignorance as wisdom, and error as truth. They claim to have special insight, but in reality they lead people away from the faith.
These teachers often speak in a certain way. They call others to follow them secretly. They claim to possess a hidden truth that has only recently been revealed. They say it must be learned quietly and passed on in secret, as if only a few are worthy to know it.
This is like the image in Scripture of a woman calling out to the simple, inviting them to take what is hidden and forbidden, saying it is sweet and pleasant. But those who follow her do not realize that it leads to destruction.
As the apostle explains, those who fall for such teachings are those who have gone astray from the faith.
22
It is helpful to explain more fully the apostle’s words: “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane and empty novelties.”
The word “O” shows both concern and foresight. Paul speaks with care because he foresees future errors and grieves over them in advance.
Who is “Timothy” today? It can mean the whole Church, or especially its leaders, who are responsible for knowing the faith and teaching it to others.
What does it mean to “keep the deposit”? It means to guard it carefully, as something valuable. There are enemies and dangers, and while people are careless, false teachings can be introduced. So the faith must be protected.
What is “the deposit”? It is what has been handed down to you – not something you invented. It is not based on personal opinion, but on what has been received. It belongs to the whole Church, not to any individual. Your role is not to create it, but to preserve it; not to lead it in new directions, but to follow it faithfully.
“Keep the deposit” means to preserve the faith without change or corruption. What you have received, you must keep and pass on. If you received gold, you must give gold – not something inferior or false. Do not replace the truth with something else. Pass on the same truth in its purity.
If you have been given ability – intelligence, skill, and learning – use it well. Like a skilled craftsman, you should explain and present the truths of the faith clearly and beautifully. You may help others understand what earlier generations believed, even if they did not fully explain it.
But even as you explain the faith more clearly, you must not change it. You may speak in new ways, but what you teach must remain the same.
23
Someone may ask: should there be no progress in the Church? Certainly there should be – real progress. But this progress must not change the faith. True progress means growth and development within the same teaching, not turning it into something different. Knowledge and understanding should increase over time, both for individuals and for the whole Church, but always within the same doctrine, meaning, and truth.
The growth of faith is like the growth of a human body. A person grows and matures over time, but remains the same person. A child becomes an adult, but does not become something else. The body develops, but its nature does not change. What appears later was already present in seed form earlier.
In the same way, Christian doctrine should grow and become clearer. It may be strengthened, explained, and refined, but it must not be changed or corrupted. It must remain whole and true, without losing its essential nature.
Think of it like planting wheat. Our ancestors planted true teaching in the Church. It would be wrong if we now produced something different, like weeds. What was planted as truth must remain truth as it grows. Its outward form may develop, but its nature must remain the same.
Therefore, what the Fathers handed down must be preserved and developed, not altered. It should be carefully explained and clarified over time, but never changed or weakened. It may become clearer and more precise, but it must remain complete and faithful to its original form.
If we allow even small changes, the danger is great. One error leads to another, until the whole faith is lost. If new ideas are mixed with the old, truth will gradually be replaced by error. What was once pure will become corrupted.
But the Church guards the faith carefully. She does not change it, add to it, or take anything away. Instead, she preserves what she has received. When needed, she clarifies and strengthens what was already believed.
This is the purpose of Church councils. They do not invent new teachings, but explain more clearly what was already believed. They help people understand the faith better, teach it more strongly, and practice it more carefully. In doing so, they often express ancient truths in new words, without changing their meaning.
24
Let us return to the apostle’s words: “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, and avoid profane novelties.”
We must avoid such teachings completely – like something dangerous. Do not even associate with those who bring them. As the Apostle John says, if someone comes without the true doctrine, do not receive him or support him, because doing so shares in his wrongdoing.
What are these “profane novelties”? They are teachings that are not sacred or rooted in the Church. They are new ideas that go against the ancient faith. If such teachings are accepted, it would mean that the faith of past generations was wrong – that the saints, the martyrs, the clergy, and the whole Church throughout history did not know the truth. This is clearly impossible.
Therefore, such novelties must be rejected. They do not belong to true Christians, but to heretics. Every heresy has appeared at a certain time and place, and each one began when someone broke away from the common and ancient teaching of the Church.
History shows this clearly. Pelagius introduced new ideas about human freedom and denied the need for God’s grace. His follower Coelestius denied that all humanity shares in Adam’s sin. Arius divided the unity of the Trinity. Sabellius confused the persons of the Trinity. Novatian taught a harsh and unmerciful view of God. Others, like Simon Magus and later teachers, introduced further false ideas about God and human nature.
There are many such examples, but they all show the same pattern: heresies always bring in new and false teachings. They reject what has been believed from ancient times and rely on ideas that only appear wise but lead to error.
In contrast, true Christians hold firmly to what has been handed down. They reject false novelties and follow the apostle’s command to condemn any teaching that differs from the faith they have received.
25
Someone may ask: do heretics also use Scripture? Yes, they do – and very extensively. They quote from every part of the Bible: the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles. Whether in private or public, in speech or writing, they almost never present their ideas without trying to support them with Scripture.
If you read their writings, you will see that they are filled with biblical quotations. Almost every page is covered with passages from Scripture.
For this reason, they are especially dangerous. They hide their false teachings under the appearance of divine authority. They know that their ideas would be rejected if presented plainly, so they cover them with the language of Scripture. In this way, someone who would reject human error may hesitate, thinking the teaching comes from God.
They act like those who give medicine to children by covering a bitter drink with something sweet. The child tastes the sweetness first and does not notice the bitterness. In the same way, heretics mix error with Scripture so that people do not recognize the danger.
This is why Christ warned, “Beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are wolves.” The “sheep’s clothing” refers to the words of Scripture, which are pure and good. The “wolves” are those who misuse these words to spread error and harm the Church.
They hide their true intentions by using the language of Scripture. At first, their words may seem gentle and trustworthy. But once they begin to explain and interpret Scripture in their own way, their error becomes clear. Then their harshness and confusion are revealed. Then the corruption of their teaching is exposed. At that point, the boundaries of the faith are broken, and the teaching of the Church is attacked.
The apostle Paul speaks of such people when he calls them false apostles and deceivers. They imitate the true apostles by quoting Scripture, but they twist its meaning. At first, they appear similar, but their false interpretations reveal the difference between truth and error.
Paul also says that even Satan can appear as an angel of light. In the same way, false teachers present themselves as servants of righteousness. When they use Scripture to support their errors, they are following this same deceptive pattern.
This shows that misusing Scripture is one of the most effective ways to spread error. By pretending to rely on the authority of Scripture, they make their false teachings seem convincing, even though they are not.
26
Someone may ask: how do we know that the devil uses Scripture? Let him read the Gospel account where the devil tempted Christ. He took the Lord to the top of the temple and said, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written that angels will protect you.”
If the devil dared to use Scripture even against the Lord, what can we expect him to do to ordinary people? He used Scripture to try to deceive Christ, saying, “It is written,” and twisting its meaning.
We must pay close attention to this example. It teaches us that when people use Scripture against the true faith, it may be the same kind of deception. Just as the devil spoke to Christ, so now his followers speak to believers – heretics to faithful Christians – using Scripture in a misleading way.
What do they say? In effect, they say: “If you want to be a true child of God, leave the teaching of the Church.” They urge people to abandon the tradition of the Church, which is like the temple of God.
If someone asks them for proof, they quickly reply, “It is written,” and then produce many passages from Scripture. But they interpret these passages in a new and incorrect way, leading people away from the truth and into error.
They also make attractive promises. They claim that their group has a special grace from God. They say that those who follow them will be safe and protected, without effort or struggle. They suggest that such people will never fall into error, as if they are guarded by angels.
In this way, they deceive those who are careless, offering false security while leading them away from the true faith.
27
Someone may ask: if both the devil and heretics use Scripture – quoting its words, ideas, and promises – what should faithful Christians do? How can they tell truth from error in Scripture?
The answer is this: they must follow the method taught by holy and wise teachers. They must interpret Scripture according to the tradition of the universal Church and in agreement with the rule of the catholic faith.
Within the Church, they must hold to three principles: what has been believed everywhere (universality), what has been believed from the beginning (antiquity), and what has been agreed upon by the faithful (consensus).
If a small group disagrees with the whole Church, they must follow the whole, not the part. If something new contradicts what is ancient, they must hold to what is ancient. If a few teachers disagree with the many, they must follow the agreement of the many.
If possible, they should follow the decisions of a general council. If there is no such decision, they should rely on the shared teaching of many respected and faithful teachers.
By carefully and faithfully following this rule, they will be able to recognize and avoid the errors of heretics when they arise.
28
And here I perceive that, as a necessary sequel to the foregoing, I ought to show by examples in what way, by collating the consentient opinions of the ancient masters, the profane novelties of heretics may be detected and condemned. Yet in the investigation of this ancient consent of the holy Fathers we are to bestow our pains not on every minor question of the Divine Law, but only, at all events especially, where the Rule of Faith is concerned. Nor is this way of dealing with heresy to be resorted to always, or in every instance, but only in the case of those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising, before they have had time to deprave the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they endeavour, while the poison spreads and diffuses itself, to corrupt the writings of the ancients. But heresies already widely diffused and of old standing are by no means to be thus dealt with, seeing that through lapse of time they have long had opportunity of corrupting the truth. And therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by universal councils of the catholic Priesthood.
Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty, and consequently the profaneness, whatever it may be, that arises, may both without any doubt be exposed, and without any tergiversation be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison, who living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ, or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all, or the more part, have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, other than 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 be separated from the authority of common, public, general persuasion, lest, after the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, rejecting the ancient truth of the universal Creed, we follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly devised error of one man.
Lest any one perchance should rashly think the holy and catholic consent of these blessed fathers to be despised, the Apostle says, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “God hath placed some in the Church, first Apostles,” of whom himself was one; “secondly Prophets,” such as Agabus, read in the Acts of the Apostles; of whom we “then doctors,” who are now called Homilists, Expositors, whom the same apostle sometimes calls also “Prophets,” because by them the mysteries of the Prophets are opened to the people. Whosoever, therefore, shall despise these, who had their appointment of God in His Church in their several times and places, when they are unanimous in Christ, in the interpretation of some one point of catholic doctrine, despises not man, but God, from whose unity in the truth, lest any one should vary, the same Apostle earnestly protests, “I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But if any one dissent 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 him who departs from the unity of consent, but of those who remain steadfast in the peace of consent: “as,” he continues, “I teach in all Churches of the saints,” that is, of Catholics, which churches are therefore churches of the saints, because they continue steadfast in the communion of the faith.
And lest any one, disregarding every one else, should arrogantly claim to be listened to himself alone, himself alone to be believed, the Apostle goes on to say, “Did the word of God proceed from you, or did it come to you only?” And, lest this should be thought lightly spoken, he continues, “If any man seem to be a prophet or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the Lord’s commands.” As to which, unless a man be a prophet or a spiritual person, that is, a master in spiritual matters, let him be as observant as possible of impartiality and unity, so as neither to prefer his own opinions to those of every one besides, nor to recede from the belief of the whole body. Which injunction, whoso ignores, shall be himself ignored; that is, he who either does not learn what he does not know, or treats with contempt what he knows, shall be ignored, that is, shall be deemed unworthy to be ranked of God with those who are united to each other by faith, and equalled with each other by humility, than which I cannot imagine a more terrible evil. This it is however which, according to the Apostle’s threatening, we see to have befallen Julian the Pelagian, who either neglected to associate himself with the belief of his fellow Christians, or presumed to dissociate himself from it.
But it is now time to bring forward the exemplification which we promised, where and how the sentences of the holy Fathers have been collected together, so that in accordance with them, by the decree and authority of a council, the rule of the Church’s faith may be settled. Which that it may be done the more conveniently, let this present Commonitory end here, so that the remainder which is to follow may be begun from a fresh beginning.
[The Second Book of the Commonitory is lost. Nothing of it remains but the following conclusion.]
29
Now, at the end of this second section, it is fitting to summarize what has been said here and earlier.
We have explained that Catholics have always defended the true faith in two ways: first, by the authority of Scripture, and second, by the tradition of the Church. Scripture is sufficient in itself, but because many interpret it according to their own views and fall into error, it must be understood according to the Church’s teaching – especially in matters that concern the foundation of the faith.
We also said that within the Church, we must follow both universality and antiquity. This protects us from division and from falling into new and false teachings. To remain faithful, two principles must be carefully observed.
First, we should ask whether the whole Church, through a general council, has already made a decision on the matter. If so, we must follow that decision.
Second, if no such decision exists, we should turn to the teaching of the Fathers – those who lived in the unity of the Church and were recognized as faithful teachers. Whatever they held together, with one mind and agreement, should be accepted as the true teaching of the Church, without hesitation.
To show that this rule is not our own invention, but the practice of the Church, we pointed to the example of the council held at Ephesus a few years ago. At that time, when a question of doctrine arose, the bishops gathered there – nearly two hundred in number – chose the safest and most faithful course. They did not introduce anything new. Instead, they brought forward the teachings of the earlier Fathers.
Some of these Fathers were martyrs, others were confessors, but all were faithful teachers of the Church. By appealing to their shared teaching, the council confirmed the authority of ancient truth and rejected false innovations.
As a result, Nestorius was rightly condemned for opposing the ancient faith, while Cyril was recognized as teaching in agreement with it.
To strengthen the reliability of this account, we recorded the names and number of the Fathers whose united judgment helped establish the truth. It is useful to recall them again here, so that we may remember them more clearly.
30
These are the men whose writings were read at the Council, serving as judges and witnesses: Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a great teacher and martyr; Athanasius, bishop of the same city, a faithful teacher and confessor; and Theophilus, also bishop of Alexandria, known for his faith, life, and learning. His successor, Cyril, now leads that Church with honor.
To show that this teaching was not limited to one place, the council also included the great teachers of Cappadocia: Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa – men known for their faith, wisdom, and holy lives.
To make clear that this was not only the belief of the East, the council also read letters from Felix and Julius, bishops of Rome, representing the Western Church.
In addition, witnesses were included from other regions: Cyprian of Carthage from the South, and Ambrose of Milan from the North.
These ten teachers were presented at Ephesus as authorities – teachers, witnesses, and judges. The council followed their teaching, trusted their testimony, and accepted their judgment carefully and without bias. In this way, it made its decision about the rule of faith.
More names could have been added, but this was not necessary. It would have taken too much time, and no one believed that these ten differed in teaching from the rest of the faithful teachers of the Church.
31
After this, we also included a statement from Cyril, found in the same council records. When the letter of Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, was read – urging that new teachings be rejected and the ancient faith preserved – Cyril proposed that it be officially recorded.
At the end of the proceedings, he said: “Let the letter of Capreolus, the reverend and faithful bishop of Carthage, be included in the acts. Its meaning is clear: he calls for the ancient faith to be confirmed, and for new and wrongly invented teachings to be rejected and condemned.” All the bishops responded together, “This is what we all say; this is what we all desire.” In other words, they agreed that what has been handed down from the past must be preserved, and what is newly invented must be rejected.
We also noted the humility and holiness of the council. Even though many bishops were present – most of them highly learned and capable of making doctrinal decisions – they did not rely on their own authority. They introduced nothing new, made no bold claims, and took nothing upon themselves. Instead, they carefully ensured that they handed down only what they had received from their predecessors.
In doing so, they not only settled the issue before them, but also gave an example for future generations: to remain faithful to ancient teaching and to reject false innovations.
We also spoke against the pride of Nestorius. He claimed that he alone truly understood Scripture, and that all earlier teachers were mistaken. He judged the entire tradition of the Church – its bishops, confessors, and martyrs – as being in error. In effect, he argued that the Church had always followed misguided teachers and remained in error until his time.
32
What has been said already is more than enough to refute every false novelty. Still, to make the argument complete, we added the authority of the Apostolic See. We cited first Pope Sixtus, who was then bishop of Rome, and second his predecessor, Pope Celestine. It is useful to include their words here as well.
Pope Sixtus wrote about the case of Nestorius in a letter to the bishop of Antioch. He said: “Since, as the Apostle teaches, the faith is one – that is, the same faith that has always been held – we must both believe and teach what has been handed down.” He then explains what this means: “No room must be given to novelty, because nothing should be added to what is ancient. The clear faith of our forefathers must not be corrupted by anything mixed into it.” This is a truly apostolic teaching. He calls the faith of the Fathers “clear,” and describes new teachings as something muddy and corrupt.
Pope Celestine taught the same principle. In a letter to the bishops of Gaul, he rebuked them for tolerating error by their silence. He warned that by failing to defend the ancient faith, they allowed new and false teachings to spread. He wrote: “We are rightly to blame if we support error by remaining silent. Therefore, rebuke these people and restrain their freedom to preach.”
Someone might ask: is he speaking about those who teach the ancient faith or those who introduce new ideas? He answers this clearly. He continues: “If it is true, as has been reported, that through your negligence people are accepting new teachings, then let novelty cease to attack antiquity.”
This was the judgment of Pope Celestine: not that the ancient faith should give way, but that new teachings must be stopped from opposing what has been handed down.
33
Anyone who rejects these apostolic and catholic teachings insults many authorities at once. First, he rejects the judgment of Pope Celestine, who declared that novelty must not oppose antiquity. Next, he ignores Pope Sixtus, who taught that nothing new should be added to the ancient faith. He also goes against Cyril, who praised the effort to preserve ancient doctrine and condemn new inventions.
Further, he opposes the Council of Ephesus, where bishops from across the Church agreed that nothing new should be taught, but only what the Fathers had already handed down together. With one voice, they affirmed that all earlier heresies had been condemned for rejecting antiquity and promoting novelty – and that Nestorius should be condemned for the same reason.
To reject this unified judgment is to claim that Nestorius was condemned unjustly. It also means rejecting the authority of the whole Church – its teachers, apostles, and prophets. Above all, it means disregarding the Apostle Paul, who commanded: “Guard what has been entrusted to you, and avoid false novelties,” and, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine, let him be condemned.”
If these apostolic commands and Church decisions are to be respected – and they must be – then all Catholics who wish to remain faithful must hold firmly to the teaching of the Fathers. They must remain united to it, live by it, and be ready to die for it. At the same time, they must reject new and false teachings completely, resisting and opposing them without compromise.
What has been explained at greater length before has now been summarized briefly, so that it may be remembered more easily and reviewed without unnecessary repetition.
