Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God

Chapter Six: The Same is Proved from the Custom of the Church

It is proved, third, from the practice of the Church. For in all centuries new doubts have arisen in the Church and have been settled in the same way, namely by judgment of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops who then existed; but to say or write that what the universal Church has always done and does is not rightly done is a mark of the most insolent insanity, as Augustine says in epist.118.

And note that we do not only say that all causes were judged by the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, but also that they were judged by the Pontiff and the Bishops who then existed. For a new Pope and new Bishops were never created for the purpose of judging of any doubt. We say this because of the Confessionists, who in the Augustan Confession art.28 confess that it pertains to the Bishops to discriminate true doctrine from false. But when we ask why then do they not acquiesce in the Council of Trent? They reply that those who exist now are not Bishops but enemies of the Gospel. But the Arians and all heretics said this same thing about the Bishops of their time, and yet notwithstanding, already for 1500 years doubts of religion have always been explained by the Bishops who were then in the Churches by ordinary succession when those doubts arose; and those who did not acquiesce were held as heretics.

In the first century, then, of the Church, which extended up to the hundredth year after the birth of Christ, there arose a question about the ceremonies of the old law, whether they were to be kept by the Gentiles converted to Christ. And just as that first question arose in the Church, so was the first Council then celebrated, with Peter as presider; and all acquiesced in the decree of that Council, Acts ch.15.

In the second century, that is, up to the two hundredth year, there arose a question about the celebration of Easter, with some wanting it to be celebrated along with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the first month, whether it be the Lord’s day or not; but others wanted it only on the Lord’s day. Now it is clear that for this reason many Councils of Bishops were celebrated, and finally it was so determined by the Roman Pontiff Victor that all the Churches of Asia were excommunicated by him because they persisted still in error. Eusebius Hist. bk.5 chs.23-­‐24 writes the whole history. But afterwards those were not only held to be excommunicated but also heretics who did not obey the decree of the Pontiff. For hence in Epiphanius Heresy 50, in Augustine Heresy 29, and in Tertullian On Prescription at the end, are numbered among the heretics, the Quartodecimans.

In the third century, that is, after the two hundredth year, the heresy of the Novatians arose, who denied that the Church could absolve those from their sins who had lapsed after baptism. But the truth was explained by the Roman Council at which Pope Cornelius presided, as Eusebius reports from Ruffinus’ version, Hist. bk.6 ch.33, and thereafter the Novatians were also held to be heretics. In the same century a question arose about rebaptism (Anabaptism); and since different people had different opinions, Cornelius at the Council held at Rome decreed that those who had been baptized by heretics were not to be rebaptized, as Eusebius reports Hist. bk.7 ch.2, and afterwards Pope Stephen too wrote and commanded that those who had been baptized by heretics according to the form of the Church were not to be rebaptized. This decree is mentioned by Cyprian in his epistle to Pompeius, and by Blessed Augustine On Baptism bk.5 ch.23, and by Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium.

In the fourth century, after the three hundredth year the heresy of the Arians arose, which was indeed taken away by the general Council of Nicea. Further there were 318 Bishops at that Council, and they are said to have been the sole judges along with the legates of the Roman See, the priests Vitus and Vincent, who along with Hosius, the Bishop of Cordoba, presided in the name of Pope Sylvester, and later still the whole Council by letter sought confirmation from Sylvester; the Emperor was present but acted as judge in nothing. All these things are plain from the first volume of Councils and from the historians, Eusebius Life of Constantine bk.3, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret Eccl. Hist. bk.1.

In the same century the heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Spirit was judged and condemned by the Council of Constantinople, which was confirmed by Damasus as Photius testifies in his book on the Seven Councils, which book is wont to be printed at the beginning of the Volume of Councils.

In the fifth century the heresy of Nestorius was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus, with Cyril presiding in the name of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius witnesses in bk.1 ch.4, and a little later the heresy of Eutyches at the Council of Chalcedon, with legates of Pope Leo presiding, as Evagrius testifies in bk.2 ch.4, and confirmation of this synod too was sought from the Roman Pontiff. And neither in this nor that Council do we read of any subscribing to it by the Emperor or by any laymen at all, but only of Ecclesiastics. See vols.1 and 2 of the Councils and Briefs of Liberatus.

In the same century the heresy of the Pelagians was condemned, which Lutherans seem to hate above others, but it was condemned by the Roman Pontiffs. For thus does Augustine say in Retract. Bk.2 ch.50, “The Pelagian heresy along with its authors was convicted and condemned by the Bishops of the Roman Church, first by Innocent and then by Zosimus, cooperating with the letters from the African Councils.” And in his Chronicle Prosper says for the year 420, “A Council was held at Carthage of 217 Bishops, and the synodal decrees were taken to Pope Zozimus, by whom they were approved and the Pelagian heresy was condemned in the whole world.”

In the sixth century many heresies were condemned in the Fifth Synod at which also only Bishops were judges.

In the seventh century the Monothelites were condemned in the Sixth Synod, over which presided the legates of the Roman Pontiff, and the Emperor was, to be sure, present and subscribed his name, but after all the Bishops, and not by judging or defining, as the Bishops did, but only by consenting.

In the eighth century the Iconomachs were condemned in the Seventh Synod, over which again the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided, and no subscription by laymen is read of. About these Synods read the Volumes of Councils and the book of Photius on the Seven Synods.

In the ninth century certain Ecclesiastical controversies were defined in the Eighth Synod, over which also the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided. The Emperor was present and subscribed his name after the Legates of the Pontiffs and the Patriarchs, but in the same place he expressively affirms that to judge of divine things does not belong to himself but only to subscribe his consent, and we will adduce his words a little later.

In the tenth century no heresy arose, which is something most obscure, and for this reason too we read of no celebration of a Council, but the schism and the error of the Greeks, which had already begun a little before, was especially vigorous in this century. We will speak shortly of its condemnation.

In the eleventh century the heresy of Berengarius was condemned by Leo IX in the Council of Vercelli and by Nicolas II afterwards in the Council of Rome, as Lanfranc and Guitmund report in bk.1 Against Berengarius.

In the twelfth century the heresy of Peter Abelard was condemned by Innocent II, as it is in the epistles of Bernard, epist.194. Again the heresy of Gilbert Porretanus was condemned by Eugene III in the Council of Reims, on the evidence of Blessed Bernard, serm.80 on the Song of Songs.

In the thirteenth century the error of Abbot Joachim was condemned by Innocent III in the general Lateran Council. And afterwards the error of the Greeks by Gregory X in the general Council of Lyons. From this there is extant the ch. Fideli, On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, in Sextus.

In the fourteenth century the errors of the Begardi were condemned at the Council of Vienne by Clement V. From this there is extant the ch.Ad Nostrum, in Clement on Heretics.

In the fifteenth century the errors of John Wycliffe and John Hus were condemned in the Council of Constance, with Martin V presiding. And again the errors of the Greeks in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV.

Finally in this our century, the sixteenth, the errors of the Lutherans have been condemned in the Council of Trent, confirmed by Pius IV. Let them now themselves find any example from antiquity by which to prove that any new error was truly held to be an error in the Church and yet was not condemned by the Pontiff but by the Emperor or some other secular Prince; or let them say, if they can, who ever dared to judge of an opinion of Councils approved by the Roman Chief and was not immediately held as a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME