Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

A cure for what ails us.

This treatise of St. Vincent (Vikentiy) is, among other things, a crystalline rebuke of Protestantism, which uses only consonance with the Scriptures, to absurd and individualistic ends to justify their doctrines. Consonance with the Scriptures is necessary, but all heretics pick and choose pieces of Scripture to build hideous mosaics of falsehoods of their own designs (see St. Irenaeus of Lyon).

But it is a rebuke also to all innovations, no matter whence they arise. If this defense were always employed, there would never have been a split between the Roman Catholic West, and the Orthodox East. There would never have been a split between the Nikonians and the Old Believers. Indeed, there would be no heresies, since all new ideas would be brought into the fire of Tradition and antiquity, which melts away falsehood through its united confession.

Of course, to make use of this treatise, one must believe that the faith of the Church, from the earliest to the present, is the same. Old beliefs are not rebuked, neither are new ones introduced. This always strangles the temptation to achieve some kind of glory in “discovering” a new teaching, or reasoning out a doctrine that none have expressed. It is a restrictive grounding in Tradition - a straitjacket for our egos who always strive, in accordance with our intellectual gifts, to bequeath to our lesser brethren what we have figured out. In this sense, Substack seems like a Christian insane asylum that has no straitjackets.

So, here is Saint Vincent - in full. It is quite long, but should offer little challenge, and great rewards. I hope it is helpful.

---

A Treatise of St. Vincent of Lerins, Presbyter and Monk of the Monastery of Lerins, written in the Year 434.

In light of the words of Scripture, which teaches: "Ask thy father, and he shall show thee; thine elders, and they shall tell thee" (Deut. 32:7), and: "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise" (Prov. 22:17), and again: "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments" (Prov. 3:1), I, the least of God’s servants, believe it will be very helpful, by the grace of God, to set down in writing what I have reverently learned from the Holy Fathers. Therefore, I will begin in the name of God and record the tradition passed down to me by the Fathers, not with the pride of an author, but with the accuracy of a faithful scribe.

The Two Sources of Orthodox Doctrine

Often, with the greatest diligence and attention, I have sought the counsel of many men of holiness and wisdom, asking how I might best distinguish the truth of the universal faith from the falsehood of heretical teachings while following the sure and straightforward path. They all gave me nearly the same answer: If anyone wishes to avoid the deceit of heresy and remain in sound and healthy faith, they must, by God’s help, safeguard their faith in two ways: first, by the authority of Holy Scripture, and second, by the tradition of the Universal Church.

The Relationship Between Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition

But someone might ask: If the written word of God is holy, perfect, and always clear when different passages are compared with one another, why is it necessary to add the authority of the Church’s interpretation? The reason is this: Holy Scripture, by its very depth, is not always understood in the same way by all people. One person interprets it in one way, another in a different way, so that as many meanings seem to arise from it as there are people reading it. Novatian interprets it one way, Sabellius another, and Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, and others each interpret it in their own manner—Photinus, Apollinarius, Priscillian, Jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, and finally, Nestorius. Therefore, due to this great number of diverse and misleading interpretations, it is absolutely necessary that the understanding of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures be guided by the rule of the Church’s universal and catholic interpretation.

Signs of True Tradition

In the Universal Church itself, we must hold firmly to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: for this is truly and properly catholic, as the very meaning of the word suggests, since it embraces almost everything universally. We will be faithful to this rule only if we follow universality, antiquity, and consensus.

To follow universality means to recognize as true only the faith which the entire Church professes throughout the world.

To follow antiquity means to in no way depart from the teachings that were surely held by our holy Fathers and ancestors.

And finally, to follow consensus means to accept within antiquity only those definitions of faith and interpretations which all, or at least almost all, bishops and teachers have upheld.

Illustration of This by Examples from Church History

What, then, would a faithful Christian do if some part of the Church separated itself from the universal faith? Surely, they must prefer the health of the whole body to the diseased infection of a part.

But what if some new infection sought to stain not just a part, but the whole Church at once? In that case, they must cleave to antiquity, which, of course, can no longer be deceived by any novelty.

And what if, even in antiquity, there is found an error, which was held by two or three people, or perhaps even a whole city, or an entire province? Without a doubt, they must prefer the decrees established by the entire Church in antiquity with universal agreement, over the stubbornness or recklessness of a few.

But what if some question arises in the future, for which no solution can be found in antiquity, agreed upon by all? Then we must carefully examine and compare the opinions of the Fathers, who lived at different times and in different places, but who were surely in communion with the one Universal Church and were respected teachers of the faith. If it is found that not just one or two, but all together, unanimously held, wrote, taught, openly, frequently, and consistently, some matter of faith, then we must without hesitation believe that we too should hold to this same belief.

To make these principles clearer, I find it necessary to illustrate each with examples and explain them more fully, lest, in our eagerness for brevity, we weaken the force of our argument by rushing through it.

During the time of Donatus, from whom the Donatists took their name, a large part of Africa fell into his insane errors, forgetting the name of Christ, the faith, and the vows of baptism, and preferring the sacrilegious stubbornness of one man to the Church of Christ. At that time, only those inhabitants of Africa who, condemning the impious schism, united themselves with all the churches of the world, remained sound within the sanctuaries of the universal faith, leaving future generations a truly excellent example of how good people should always prefer the soundness of the whole Church to the madness of one, or even a few individuals.

Similarly, when the poison of Arianism did not merely affect a part of the world, but almost the whole world, the true lovers and worshippers of Christ were not harmed by this poison, because they preferred the ancient faith to the treacherous novelty. The passions of that time showed all too clearly the great evils that arise from introducing novelty into doctrine. It was not a small thing that was shaken, but everything great—the very foundations were disturbed, and not only familial and social relationships but entire cities, regions, and provinces, and indeed the whole Roman Empire. And all this, for what reason other than this: that human superstitions were introduced in place of heavenly doctrine, established antiquity was undermined by criminal novelty, the decrees of the ancients were broken, the covenants of the fathers were torn apart, the rulings of the forefathers were overthrown, and the unholy desire for a new curiosity did not restrain itself within the pure boundaries of sacred and unblemished tradition.

But perhaps we imagine this only out of preference for old customs and out of hatred for innovations? Whoever thinks so, let them at least trust the blessed Ambrose, who, in his second book (On the Faith, ch. 4), addressed to Emperor Gratian, laments the miseries of that age, saying: “But it is enough, almighty God, we have washed away with our blood and exile the slaughters of confessors, the imprisonment of shepherds, and all the horrors of that terrible impiety! It is clear now to all that no one can be safe if they dare to violate the faith!”

In the third book (ch. 7) of the same work, he writes again: “Let us hold to the covenants of the fathers and never dare, with the madness of reckless boldness, to break the seals of our inheritance! That sealed book of the Apocalypse, neither the elders, nor powers, nor angels, nor archangels dared to open; the privilege to open it was given only to Christ alone (Rev. 5). Who among us would dare to break the seals of the book of pastoral teaching, sealed by the confessors and sanctified by the martyrdom of many? Those who were once forced to break the seals later restored them; and those who did not dare to touch them, became confessors and martyrs. Shall we then dare to reject the faith of those whose victory we now celebrate?”—Indeed, we do celebrate them, venerable Ambrose, I say, we celebrate them and, in celebrating, we marvel at them!

Who indeed would be so insane as to, despite lacking the strength to equal them, not at least wish to follow in the footsteps of those whom neither threats, nor flattery, nor life, nor death could tear away from defending the faith of the fathers? Whom God so greatly blessed for their loyalty to the faith of the past that through them He restored churches that had fallen, revived nations that were spiritually dead, returned to pastors their trampled rights, and washed away the filth of impious innovation with the torrent of tears shed by the faithful bishops. Finally, He turned almost the whole world, shaken by the sudden storm of heresy, back from the new destruction of faith to the ancient faith, from the madness of novelty to the sound reason of old, and from the recent darkness to the ancient light!

Yet in this supernatural strength of the confessors, we must especially note that they defended not just a part of the Church’s faith but the faith of the entire Church community. And it was not in the nature of so many great men to defend with all their might the mistaken and contradictory ideas of one or two people, or to labor on behalf of some reckless plan of one region. On the contrary, they followed the decisions and decrees of all the ancient pastors of the Holy Church, heirs of apostolic and universal truth. They were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than abandon the faith held by the whole Church throughout the ages. And for this, they were worthy to receive such great honor that they are rightly revered, not only as confessors, but as the greatest among confessors.

Their approach was not new either. The Church has always upheld the custom that the more devout a person is, the more firmly they oppose new fabrications. The history of the Church is full of such examples. But to avoid going too far afield, let us consider just one example.

Once, Agrippinus, a bishop of Carthage of honorable memory, against the Holy Scripture, against the rule of faith held by the whole Church, against the opinion of all other pastors, and against the customs and decrees of the Fathers, was the first among mortals to invent the practice of re-baptism. This arrogant innovation caused so much harm that not only did it serve as a model for heretics to desecrate the sacraments, but it also led some orthodox believers into error.

At that time, all the pastors of the Church everywhere in all lands arose against this innovation and, with zeal appropriate to each of them, rejected it. The bishop of the Apostolic See, the blessed Pope Stephen, opposed it as well. In a letter sent to Africa, he decreed that nothing new should be introduced except what had been handed down. This holy and wise man understood that the essential rule of piety is that, just as the Fathers believed, so must the children seal the same faith with their belief. Our duty is not to lead religion wherever we wish, but to follow where it leads us. And it is the modesty and dignity of a Christian to pass down to future generations not our own inventions, but to preserve for them what was received from our ancestors.

What was the outcome of the whole matter?

What other result could there be but the usual and expected one? Antiquity was upheld, and novelty was rejected. What influence did the African council, which later confirmed this innovation, have? By the grace of God, none at all. It was all soon discarded, trampled underfoot, and destroyed, like a dream, like a fable, like nonsense.

And how remarkable is the turn of events! The inventors of that opinion are considered orthodox, but their followers are heretics. The teachers were absolved, but the disciples were condemned. Those who wrote in defense of it will be sons of the kingdom, but their defenders will be consigned to hellfire.

Who indeed would be so mad as to doubt that the light of all the saints, all the bishops, all the martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, and his companions will reign forever with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, would be so wicked as to deny that the Donatists and other polluters, who justified re-baptism by citing the authority of that council, will burn in unquenchable fire with the devil? It seems to me that this outcome was brought about by divine inspiration, especially in light of the cunning of those people who, seeking to spread their heresy under another’s name, often take a little-known writing of some ancient figure, which, due to its ambiguity, seems to favor their teaching. By doing so, they aim to show that what they preach, whatever it may be, was not first preached by them alone. I consider the impiety of such people doubly deserving of rejection, both because they do not fear to intoxicate others with the poison of heresy, and because they, so to speak, cast to the wind the memory of a holy man, as if it were lifeless dust, bringing to light once again those opinions of his that should have been buried in silence, thereby disgracing them. They walk entirely in the footsteps of their master, Ham, who not only failed to cover the nakedness of his honorable father Noah, but also spoke of it to others in mockery, for which his descendants were cursed. Blessed be Noah’s other sons, who would neither look upon their father’s nakedness with their own eyes nor allow others to mock it. They turned their faces away, as the Scripture says, and covered him (Gen. 9:23), which means they did not approve of the error of the holy man, but neither did they expose it to scorn. For this, they received a rich blessing upon their descendants. But let us return to the matter at hand.

The Unchangeability of Doctrinal Faith

We must, therefore, have a great fear of the sin of altering the faith and breaking with Orthodoxy. Not only does the practice of the Church warn us against this, but so too does the authority of the Apostles.

Everyone knows how strongly, how severely, and how persistently the blessed Apostle Paul rebukes those who, with incomprehensible carelessness, so quickly turned away from Him that called them into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, although there cannot be another gospel (Gal. 1:6-7); who sought out teachers to satisfy their own desires, turning their ears away from the truth and turning to fables (2 Tim. 4:3-4); and who are condemned for having cast off their first faith (1 Tim. 5:12). About those who led them astray, the Apostle writes in his letter to the Romans: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:17-18). They "creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:6-7); they are "vain talkers and deceivers...subverting whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake" (Titus 1:10-11); they are "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith" (2 Tim. 3:8), "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words" (1 Tim. 6:4). Their "vain babblings" greatly advance ungodliness, and "their word will eat as doth a canker" (2 Tim. 2:16-17). It is good, however, that the Scripture says further about them: "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men" (2 Tim. 3:9).

When some of these kinds of people, spreading their errors through the provinces and cities, came to the Galatians, and when the Galatians, having listened to them, began to feel a certain disdain for the truth, and, having cast aside the manna of universal teaching, began to indulge in the filth of heretical novelty, Paul used the full authority of his apostolic office and very sternly declared: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). What do his words "But though we" mean? Why did he not say "But though I"? This means: even if Peter, or Andrew, or John, or indeed the entire assembly of apostles, were to preach to you something different from what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

What an astonishing threat! In order to uphold the immutability of the original faith, the Apostle spared neither himself nor the other apostles!

Furthermore, he says, "But though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." It was not enough for him to mention merely human beings to guard the once-delivered faith; he included even the superior nature of angels. "But though we, or an angel from heaven." This does not mean that the holy angels in heaven could truly err; rather, what he is saying is this: even if, hypothetically, the impossible were to happen, and whoever it might be attempted to change the once-delivered faith, let him be accursed. Perhaps these words were said by accident, or they were spoken in a moment of human passion and not under divine inspiration? Absolutely not. In the next verse, he repeats the same thing with doubled intensity, emphasizing his point with particular force: "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9). He did not say: if anyone proclaims something different than what you first received, let him be blessed, honored, or accepted, but rather, let him be accursed, that is, excommunicated, cut off, and cast out, so that the grievous wound of one sheep does not spread its poisonous infection to the undefiled flock of Christ.

But perhaps this command was given only to the Galatians? If that were the case, then would we also say that what is written later in the same letter, such as: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another" (Gal. 5:25-26), was also meant only for the Galatians? This would be absurd; these moral commands apply equally to everyone. Therefore, the earlier warning concerning the faith is equally obligatory for everyone. Just as no one is permitted to provoke or envy another, so no one is permitted to accept anything that the Universal Church has not always proclaimed.

Or perhaps the command to anathematize those who would preach anything other than what was first proclaimed was only valid then, and no longer applies today? If that were the case, then would the Apostle’s other command, also found in the same letter: "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16), also only apply to that time and not to us now? To think such a thing would be both impious and destructive. From this, it necessarily follows that just as the latter command is to be observed at all times, so too is the command concerning the immutability of the faith meant for all times. Therefore, it has never been, is not now, and will never be permitted to proclaim to orthodox Christians anything that they have not previously received. And those who proclaim anything beyond what was once and for all accepted must always be anathematized—this was always the rule, is now the rule, and will always be the rule.

If this is the case, who would be so bold as to dare to proclaim something new that had never before been proclaimed in the Church? Or who would be so reckless as to accept something other than what they have received from the Church? The chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), the teacher of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9), the apostolic trumpet, the herald of the world, the heavenly mystic, the Apostle Paul proclaims in his writings, proclaims to all, proclaims for all times, and repeats his proclamation: Whoever preaches a new doctrine, let him be accursed! And yet, some insignificant creatures, like frogs, gnats, and dying flies—such as the Pelagians—buzz to the orthodox: we are the founders, we are the innovators, we are the interpreters! They tell us: "Reject what you have held, hold what you have rejected. Cast aside the ancient faith, the decrees of the fathers, the covenants of your ancestors, and instead accept...what? It is frightening even to say, for it is so arrogant that it seems one cannot even refute it without somehow staining oneself."

But why, someone may ask, does God often allow certain prominent figures in the Church to proclaim something new to the orthodox? It is a fair question, and one worthy of closer and more detailed consideration. However, it must not be resolved by human reasoning but by the guidance of God's law and the example of Church teaching. Let us, then, listen to the holy Moses. He will explain to us why it sometimes happens that learned men, whom the Apostle even calls prophets due to their gift of knowledge (1 Cor. 14:29), proclaim new doctrines—doctrines that, in the Old Testament, are allegorically referred to as "other gods," since heretics revere their opinions in much the same way as pagans revere their gods.

Blessed Moses writes in Deuteronomy: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams"—that is, a teacher appointed in the Church, whom his students or listeners regard as teaching by divine revelation—"and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass"—this refers to a truly great and learned teacher, whose followers regard him as not only understanding human matters, but also foreknowing that which is beyond human capacity, as the disciples of Valentinus, Donatus, Photinus, Apollinarius, and others like them boasted—"and he say, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them"—who are these other gods if not the foreign errors previously unknown to you, that is, the new and unheard-of doctrines?—"Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams" (Deut. 13:1-3).

Why, then, one might ask, does God not forbid the teaching of something that He Himself forbids us to listen to? "For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:3). It is now clearer than daylight why God’s providence sometimes allows certain Church teachers to preach various new doctrines: "The Lord your God proveth you!"

Therefore, all true Orthodox believers must understand that it is their duty to follow the Church in accepting her teachers, and not to depart from the faith of the Church in following her teachers.

Truly and rightly Orthodox is the one who is wholly committed to the Church, to the body of Christ, to the truth of God, and who places nothing above the divine religion, above the universal faith—not authority, not personal affection, not gifts, not eloquence, not the philosophy of any man. Such a person, disregarding all these things, remains firm, constant, and unshaken in the faith, holding it as their duty to believe only that which is known to have been held by the whole universal Church from antiquity, and to reject as unrelated to religion anything introduced later by one individual apart from all, or contrary to all the saints, as something new and unheard of. They must also particularly heed the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor. 11:19). It is as if the Apostle is saying: the authors of heresies are not immediately uprooted by God so that "those who are approved" may be revealed, meaning, so that it may be seen how firmly, how faithfully, and how unshakably each one loves the universal faith.

Indeed, as soon as any novelty appears, the weight of the grain and the lightness of the chaff are immediately made visible. Without much effort, everything that lacks the weight of truth is blown away from the threshing floor. Some fly off entirely to who knows where. Others are so disturbed that they are afraid to flee and ashamed to remain—they are scattered, half dead and half alive... At one moment, carried by the wind of error, they rush in whatever direction the wind blows, and at another, regaining some sense, they are pushed back like waves. One moment, with blind audacity, they grasp at what is clearly unknown to them, and the next, with unreasonable fear, they are terrified of what is plainly known, completely unsure of where to go, where to return, what to seek, what to avoid, what to hold on to, and what to abandon. Yet this state of confusion, of wavering and indecision, if they would only be willing to reflect on it, is a remedy provided to them by God's mercy. Outside the safe haven of the universal faith, they are tormented and nearly undone by various stormy thoughts, so that they might lower the sails of prideful intellect, which they have imprudently raised to catch the wind of novelty, and return to the most secure harbor of the peaceful and gracious mother Church. Having vomited out the bitter and troubling waves of error, they may then drink the life-giving streams of pure water. Let them study well what they have not known well, and what can be understood in the whole body of the Church’s doctrinal teaching, let them understand, and what cannot be, let them believe.

As I continue to reflect on this subject again and again, I am left in awe at the madness of some people, at the blindness of such impious minds, and finally at their passion for error—that they are not content with the once-delivered and anciently accepted rule of faith but are constantly seeking something new, always desiring to add to religion, to change it, or to take something away from it, as if it were not a heavenly doctrine, complete once revealed, but rather an earthly institution, perfectible only through constant revisions and corrections! Meanwhile, the divine words declare: "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Prov. 22:28), and "Judge not above a judge" (Sirach 8:17); "Whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him" (Eccles. 10:8).

This same instruction is also given in the following saying of the Apostle, which, like a spiritual sword, has cut down and will always cut down all the unlawful innovations of every heresy: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-21). And yet, after all this, there are still people who are as hardened as stone, as unyielding as an anvil, as stubborn as flint, who do not yield to the weight of these heavenly words, who are not shattered by these burdens, not broken by these hammers, and who, finally, do not decay under these thunderbolts! "Avoid," says the Apostle, "profane and vain babblings," that is, novelties. He did not say "ancient traditions," he did not say "old customs"; on the contrary, by this clear contrast, he shows what is to be followed. If novelties are to be avoided, then antiquity must be upheld; if novelties are worthless, then antiquity is sacred. "And oppositions of science falsely so called." Truly, in heretical teachings, names are false: ignorance is called knowledge, confusion is called clarity, darkness is called light. "Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." What did they boast in, but some new and unknown teaching? Listen to one of them: "Come," they say, "you miserable fools, who are commonly called orthodox, and learn the true faith, which no one besides us understands, which was hidden for many ages, but has now recently been revealed and made known; but learn it secretly and in private—that will make it more enjoyable." And again: "When you have learned it, teach it secretly, so that neither the world will hear, nor the Church know, for such an incomprehensible mystery is given to only a few to understand." Is this not the voice of the harlot, calling to the passersby in the Proverbs of Solomon? Hear her words: "Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither," and to the simple ones she says, "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." What comes next? "But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell" (Prov. 9:16-18). Who are these dead? The Apostle explains: they are those who have erred concerning the faith.

But it is worth our effort to examine this passage of the Apostle more closely. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings," he says.

"O!"—this exclamation expresses both foreknowledge and love: the Apostle foresaw the errors to come and lamented them in advance.

Who, now, is "Timothy," if not the whole Church, or in particular, her bishops, who are obligated not only to keep the faith themselves but to pass on its unblemished knowledge to others?

What does it mean to "keep that which is committed to thy trust"? It means to guard, because there are thieves, there are enemies, who would sow weeds among the good seed of wheat that the Son of Man has sown in His field (Matt. 13:37-39) while men sleep.

"Keep that which is committed to thy trust." What is "that which is committed"? It is what has been entrusted to you, not what you have devised; it is what you have received, not what you have invented—something not of your own mind, but of the teaching; not a private possession, but a public tradition; something that has been handed down to you, not discovered by you, something for which you must be not an author, but a guardian; not a founder, but a follower; not a leader, but one led.

"Keep that which is committed to thy trust," meaning preserve the talent of the universal faith intact and uncorrupted. What has been entrusted to you, let that remain with you, and pass it on as you received it. You have received gold, so give back gold. I do not want you to substitute one thing for another, nor to offer brass boldly in place of gold, nor deceitfully lead. I want gold in substance, not just in appearance.

"O Timothy"—O shepherd, O writer, O teacher! If the gift of God has made you capable by mind, by education, by learning, then be a Bezalel (Exod. 31:2-5) of the spiritual tabernacle: polish the precious stones of divine doctrine, place them rightly, arrange them wisely, and give them shine, beauty, and grace. Strive so that, by your clearer exposition, they may more clearly understand that in which they once believed with less clarity. Let the generations to come glorify with understanding what earlier ages venerated without full comprehension. But teach what you have been taught, and when you speak in a new way, say nothing new!

The Progress of Doctrine

Someone may ask, then, if there should be no progress in the understanding of religion within the Church of Christ? Certainly, there must be, and indeed, the greatest progress. Who could be so envious of humanity, and so hateful toward God, as to dare to prevent this? But this progress must be real progress, not a change of faith.

Progress means that something advances within itself, while change means that something transforms from one thing into another. Therefore, let understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and progress as much as possible, both in individuals and in the whole Church, as in a single person, but only within the same doctrine, the same meaning, and the same understanding.

Religion, which is the work of the soul, must resemble the development of the body. Over the course of years, bodies unfold and develop their parts, yet they remain the same as they were. The flourishing of youth and the maturity of old age are very different from one another, yet those who become elderly are the same individuals who were once young children, so that although the stature and appearance of a person change, their nature remains unchanged, and they are the same person. The limbs of infants are small, those of young people are larger, but they are the same limbs. An infant has as many parts as an adult, and as they grow, everything that develops was already present in embryonic form, so that in old age nothing new is revealed that was not already present in childhood. Thus, the proper law of progress, the unchanging and most beautiful order of growth, is this: as the years advance, the same components and forms develop in older ages that the wisdom of the Creator had already placed in children, so that if a person’s body were to later turn into some different form, or if more parts were added, or some were taken away, the whole body would either die, become deformed, or at the very least be weakened.

This law of progress must also be followed by the doctrinal teachings of the Christian faith. Let them become stronger over the years, let them expand with time, let them rise higher with age, but let them remain intact and uncorrupted, whole and complete in all their parts, in all their, so to speak, limbs and senses, without any change beyond that, without losing anything of their substance, and without any alteration in their definitions.

I will use a comparison. In this field of the Church, our forefathers once planted the seeds of wheat—the seeds of faith. It would be unjust and contrary to the nature of the matter for us, their descendants, to leave behind tares—falsehoods—instead of the true wheat of truth. What the farming of God planted by faith in the Church of our fathers, let that same seed be cultivated and tended by the efforts of their sons, let it blossom and ripen, let it grow and be perfected.

If we allow impious error to take hold in this regard, I shudder to think of the terrible danger of destroying and undermining religion. If one part of the universal dogma is rejected, it will, as a custom, soon become permissible to gradually reject one part after another. And then, once the parts are rejected one by one, what will follow but the total rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if we begin to mix the new with the old, the foreign with the familiar, the profane with the sacred, this practice will spread throughout everything, until there is nothing left in the Church that is untouched, nothing uncorrupted, nothing whole, nothing unstained. What was once the sanctuary of pure and unblemished truth will become, in the end, a foul den of impious and wicked errors. May the grace of God avert this profanation from our minds! Let it remain the folly of the wicked.

The Church of Christ, as the careful and vigilant guardian of the dogmas entrusted to her, never changes anything in them, never subtracts anything necessary, never adds anything excessive, never loses what is her own, and never claims what is foreign. Instead, she diligently strives only to accomplish this: that by wise and faithful reflection, if something was once planned and laid down in antiquity, it should be completed and refined; if something has already been explained and interpreted, it should be reinforced and confirmed; and if something has already been confirmed and defined, it should be preserved.

What else, finally, has the Church always sought to achieve through her conciliar decrees? Nothing other than this: that what was once believed in simplicity might later be believed with greater understanding, that what was once preached more subtly might later be proclaimed more boldly, and that what was once cultivated with care might later be reaped with more certainty. I do not hesitate to say, and will always say, that the Universal Church, driven by the novelties of heretics, through the decrees of her councils has done nothing other than confirm for future generations, in written form, what she had already received from her ancestors through tradition. In doing so, she compressed many teachings into a few words, and often expressed the same meaning of faith in clearer language, without introducing any new meaning.

But let us return to the Apostle. "O Timothy! Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings" (1 Tim. 6:20). Avoid them, he says, as if they were vipers, scorpions, or basilisks, so that they do not wound you, not only by their touch but even by their gaze or breath. "Profane and vain babblings." What kind of babblings? Those that contain nothing sacred, nothing religious, and are entirely foreign to the mysteries of the Church, which is the temple of God.

"Profane and vain babblings," meaning new doctrines, actions, or opinions that are contrary to antiquity and tradition, the acceptance of which would necessarily destroy the faith of the blessed fathers, either entirely or in large part. This would require us to declare that all believers of all ages, all the saints, all the holy men, ascetics, virgins, clerics, Levites, and priests, so many confessors, so many armies of martyrs, so many famous cities and villages, so many islands, provinces, kings, nations, kingdoms, and peoples, and finally, almost the whole world, united in one body by the universal faith under the headship of Christ, were all, for so many centuries, wandering in ignorance, erring, blaspheming, and not knowing what they believed.

"Avoiding profane and vain babblings"—accepting them and following them has never been the work of the Orthodox, but has always been the work of heretics. Indeed, hasn’t every heresy always arisen under a specific name, in a specific place, at a specific time? Hasn’t the founder of each heresy always separated himself from the agreement with the universality and antiquity of the universal Church?

The truth of this is clearer than day when we look at examples. For instance, before the wicked Pelagius, who ever attributed such power to human free will as to claim that divine grace was not necessary for helping us in every good action? Before his wretched disciple Celestius, who ever denied that the entire human race is guilty of Adam’s sin? Before the impious Arius, who ever dared to break the unity of the Trinity, or before the lawless Sabellius, who ever dared to merge the three persons of the Trinity into one?

There are countless other examples of this kind, which I leave out for the sake of brevity. But they all clearly and plainly show that, in almost every heretical society, it has become customary and lawful to delight in wicked novelties, to despise the covenants of antiquity, and to suffer shipwreck in the faith through contradictions and the so-called "knowledge" they falsely claim to possess. On the contrary, the distinctive feature of the Orthodox is that they preserve the traditions and covenants of the Holy Fathers, condemning wicked novelties, according to the Apostle’s twice-repeated words: "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9).

The Relationship of Heretics to the Holy Scripture

Now someone may ask: Do heretics really use the testimony of Holy Scripture? They certainly do, and to an extraordinary extent. Observe how they scour all the books of the Divine Law: the books of Moses, the books of the Kings, the Psalms, the Apostles, the Gospels, and the Prophets. Whether among their own or among others, privately or publicly, in spoken debates or written works, in gatherings at home or public meetings, they almost never speak about their own ideas without trying to support them with the words of Scripture. Take, for instance, the writings of Paul of Samosata, Priscillian, Eunomius, Jovinian, and other corrupters of the faith, and you will find an enormous number of scriptural references—they hardly have a page that is not adorned or embellished with passages from the New or Old Testament.

But this should make us all the more cautious and wary of them, precisely because they so often hide under the shadow of Divine Scripture. They know that their stench will hardly appeal to anyone if it is left as it is, so they sprinkle themselves with the fragrance of the heavenly words, so that someone who might easily reject human error might not so readily turn away from divine speech.

For this reason, the Savior proclaims: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). What is this sheep’s clothing but the sacred sayings which the prophets and apostles wove together with the pure innocence of sheep for the spotless Lamb, who takes away the sin of the world? And who are these ravening wolves but the heretics, who with their savage and cruel inventions attack the sheepfolds of the Church and tear apart the flock of Christ wherever they can? To more easily sneak up on the unsuspecting sheep, they hide their wolfish appearance, though they do not abandon their wolfish ferocity.

But what does the Savior say? "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16). That is, when they begin to not only display but also explain the divine sayings, not just to show them but also to interpret them, then the bitterness, the stench of novelty will be felt, then the wicked innovations will be exposed. Then you will see how the fence is broken down, the boundaries set by the fathers are violated, the universal faith is betrayed, and the Church’s doctrine is torn to pieces.

Such were those whom the Apostle Paul strikes down in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, describing them as: "such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. 11:13). What does it mean that they "transform themselves into apostles of Christ"? It means that just as the apostles brought forward testimony from Holy Scripture, so do they. The apostles brought forward proof from the Psalms, and so do they. The apostles brought forward sayings from the prophets, and so do they. But when they began to interpret these testimonies, not as the apostles did, but in a contrary manner, then the difference between the true apostles and the false ones, the genuine and the counterfeit, the upright and the perverse, the true and the false, became apparent. "And no marvel," continues the Apostle, "for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. 11:14-15).

Thus, whenever false apostles, false prophets, or false teachers cite passages from Holy Scripture to support their errors through distorted interpretations, they undoubtedly, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, imitate the cunning tricks of their leader, Satan, who would never resort to such tactics if he did not know from experience that when it comes to deceiving people with wicked error, there is no easier way than by invoking the authority of the word of God.

But how do we know, you might ask, that the devil uses the testimony of Holy Scripture? Read the Gospel. It is written there: "Then the devil taketh Him"—that is, the Lord and Savior—"up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee: and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone" (Matt. 4:5-6; Ps. 91:11-12).

What wouldn’t the devil do to poor human beings, when he attacked the very Lord Himself with the testimony of Scripture? "If," he says, "Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down." Why? "For it is written," he says.

We must especially note and remember the lesson in this passage: that knowing this example from the Gospel, whenever we see some people bringing forth apostolic or prophetic passages to oppose the universal faith, we should have no doubt that it is the devil speaking through their mouths.

Indeed, just as the head (Satan) spoke to the Head (Christ) then, so now the members of Satan speak to the members of Christ: Satan’s members speak to Christ’s members, the treacherous speak to the faithful, the impious speak to the devout, the heretics speak to the Orthodox. What exactly do they say? "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down," meaning, if you want to be a child of God and inherit the kingdom of heaven, "cast thyself down," cast yourself from the heights of the Church, which is also the temple of God—abandon its teachings and traditions.

And if someone were to ask one of these heretics, who is urging him to do this: "On what basis do you teach that I must abandon the ancient, universal faith of the Universal Church?" He would immediately reply, "For it is written," and then present you with a thousand examples, a thousand proofs from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the Prophets, so that by interpreting them in a new and perverse way, he might cast your soul down from the universal ark into the abyss of heresy.

As for those promises to which the devil referred afterward, heretics are remarkably skilled at using them to deceive simple people. They dare to promise and teach that within their church (that is, within their congregation), there is a special and particular grace of God, so great that each member, without any effort, diligence, or striving—whether they seek, ask, or knock—enjoys such favor from God that, being carried in the arms of angels and guarded by their protection, they will never "dash their foot against a stone," never fall into error.

Conclusion

So then, someone may ask: What are the Orthodox, the sons of the mother Church, to do when the devil and his disciples—some of whom are false apostles, others false prophets and false teachers, and all of them, in general, heretics—use the words, sayings, and promises of Holy Scripture? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood when confronted with the words of Scripture?

They must do so, as we have said at the beginning of this work, according to the tradition of the holy and learned men. That is, they must ensure that the interpretation of Holy Scripture aligns with the traditions of the entire Church and follows the guidance of the universal doctrinal teaching. In the universal and apostolic Church, they must adhere to universality, antiquity, and consensus. This means that if ever a part rises against the whole, if novelty challenges antiquity, if the erroneous opinion of one, or even a few, stands against the consensus of all, or at least the majority of the Orthodox, then they must prefer the infallibility of the whole over the error of a part. When the matter concerns universality, they must prefer the piety of antiquity over the depravity of novelty. Finally, when the matter concerns antiquity itself, they must, above all, prefer the common decrees of an Ecumenical Council (if such exists on the matter) to the foolishness of one or a few. And if there are no such decrees, then they must follow that which is closest to them, that is, the mutually agreed opinions of the majority of the great teachers. If we follow this faithfully, reasonably, and diligently, with the help of God, we will easily distinguish every criminal error of heretics as it arises.

It must be noted, however, that we are bound to examine the concordant opinions of the ancient holy fathers and follow them, not in relation to every minor question of Holy Scripture, but primarily concerning the rule of faith.

On the other hand, this method of refutation is not always necessary, nor should it be applied to every heresy, but only to new and recent ones that are appearing for the first time. As for old and long-standing heresies, there is no need for us to approach them in this way... No matter how ancient such heresies or schisms may be, we must either refute them, if necessary, solely by the authority of Holy Scripture, or simply flee from them without hesitation, as they have already been condemned by the teachings of the Orthodox pastors of the Church and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

The end. And to our God be the glory!

source