Discourse of St. Vincent of Lerins, priest and monk of the monastery of Lerins, written in 434.
Two sources of Orthodox dogma
Often, with all diligence and the greatest attention, I addressed the question to many men adorned with holiness and the gift of teaching: in what way it would be more convenient for me, walking the faithful, as if royal, and direct path, to distinguish the truth of the universal faith from the falsity of heretical deviations, and always everyone gave me almost word for word this kind of answer: if anyone, whether I or anyone else, wants to avoid heretical lies and remain in sound faith healthy and unharmed, then he must, with the help of God, protect his faith in two ways: first, by the authority of Holy Scripture, and secondly, by the tradition of the Universal Church.
The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
But perhaps someone will ask: if the written word of God is holy, perfectly complete, and always perfectly intelligible when compared with one passage, then what need is there to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical understanding? The need is that Holy Scripture, by its very sublimity, is not understood by everyone in the same sense, but one interprets its passages one way, another another, so that, apparently, almost as many meanings can be extracted from it as there are heads. Novatian explains it in his own way, Sabellius in his own, Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius in their own way, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, Jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius in their own way, and finally, Nestorius in his own. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary, with such a multitude of countless and varied twists and turns of error, to direct the thread of interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures according to the norm of their ecclesiastical and ecumenical understanding.
Signs of true tradition
In the universal Church itself, we must by all means adhere to what has been believed everywhere, what has always been believed, what everyone has believed: for only that is truly and properly universal, as the very meaning of the word shows, which, as far as possible, embraces everything. And we will ultimately be faithful to this rule only if we adhere to universality, antiquity, and harmony.
To follow universality means to recognize as true only that faith which is professed by the entire Church throughout the globe.
To follow antiquity means in no case to deviate from the teaching that our holy fathers and ancestors undoubtedly adhered to.
To follow, finally, the agreement means, in ancient times, to accept only those definitions of faith and explanations that were held by all, or at least almost all, pastors and teachers.
Explaining this with examples from church history
So, how would an Orthodox Christian act now if some part of the Church were to separate from the communion of the universal faith? Certainly, they would prefer the health of the universal body to the harmful, infected part.
But what if some new infection attempts to taint not just a part, but the entire Church ? Then, it follows, we must cling to antiquity, which, of course, can no longer be seduced by any wiles of novelty.
But what if, in ancient times, an error were held by two or three individuals, perhaps an entire city, or even an entire region? Then, undoubtedly, the stubbornness or folly of a few should be preferred to those definitions that were established by the entire Church in ancient times with common consent.
And if in the future some such question arises, for which no consensus could be found in ancient times? Then we must endeavor to analyze and compare the opinions of the Fathers, even if they lived at different times and in different places, but who were certainly in communion with the one universal Church in faith and were respected teachers. And if it turns out that not just one or two, but all of them unanimously held, wrote, or taught something of this kind, openly, frequently, and consistently, then we must accept that we too must believe in it without any doubt.
In order to make our positions clearer, we consider it necessary to explain each of them with examples and to explain them in a little more detail, so as not to weaken their force through an immoderate concern for brevity by a cursory exposition.
During the time of Donatus, from whom the Donatists took their name, a significant portion of Africa fell into his mad errors and, forgetting the name of Christ, the faith, and the vows of baptism, preferred the sacrilegious obstinacy of one man to the Church of Christ. Then, of the inhabitants of Africa, only those who, having cursed the unseemly schism, united with all the churches of the world were able to remain sane in the sanctuaries of the universal faith, leaving to posterity a truly beautiful example of how good people should henceforth prefer the sanity of all to the madness of one, or even a few, individuals.
Likewise, when the poison of Arianism touched not just a tiny fraction of the world, but almost the entire world, the true lovers and worshippers of Christ suffered no harm from this poison, because they preferred the ancient faith to the treacherous novelty. The passions of that time abundantly demonstrated the calamities that come with introducing novelty into dogma. Then, not just small things, but everything great was shaken—not only kinship, in-law relationships, friendships, and family life were shaken to their foundations and destabilized, but entire cities, villages, regions, entire countries, and, finally, the entire Roman Empire. And was not all this for the sole reason that then, instead of heavenly dogma, human superstitions were introduced, the well-established antiquity was undermined by criminal novelty, the decrees of the elders were violated, the covenants of the fathers were torn, the definitions of the ancestors were overthrown, and the passion of impious and newly adopted inquisitiveness did not contain itself within the immaculate boundaries of sacred and unblemished antiquity?
But perhaps we imagine this only out of a fondness for antiquity and a hatred of innovation? Anyone who thinks so should at least believe Blessed Ambrose, who in his second book (On Faith, Chapter 4), dedicated to the Emperor Gratian, also lamenting the misfortunes of that time, says: "But enough, Almighty God, have we washed away with our exiles and our blood the massacres of confessors, the imprisonment of pastors, and all the abominations of this terrible impiety! It is now perfectly clear to all that no one can be safe who dares to violate the faith!"
In the third book (chapter 7) of the same work, he also writes: “Let us keep the covenants of our ancestors and never dare, with the madness of wild courage, to break our hereditary seals! Neither the elders, nor the authorities, nor the angels, nor the archangels dared to open that sealed apocalyptic book: the privilege of opening it was granted exclusively to Christ alone ( Rev. 5 ). Will any of us dare to remove the seals from the book of pastoral teaching 1 , sealed by confessors and already sanctified by the martyrdom of many? Those who were once forced to remove its seals, later put them on again; and those who did not dare touch them, they became confessors and martyrs. Shall we in any way dare to deny the faith of those whose victory we glorify?” – We glorify, venerable Ambrose, truly, I say, we glorify, and in glorifying, we marvel!
Who, indeed, would be so mad that, despite his inability to catch up, he would not at least wish to follow in the footsteps of those whom nothing, neither threats nor flattery, neither life nor death, could tear away from defending the faith of their ancestors, whom, for their devotion to the pious antiquity, the Lord granted such a gift that through them He restored overthrown churches, revived spiritually dead peoples, returned to pastors their trampled rights, washed away the obscene stain of innovative impiety with a stream of tears flowing from above to the bishops, shed by the faithful, and finally, converted almost the entire world, shaken by the terrible storm of heresy that suddenly swooped down, from the new-found collapse of faith to the ancient faith, from the madness of novelty to ancient common sense, from recent blindness to the ancient light!
But in this supernatural power of confessors, we must also note especially that in the earliest days of the Church, they defended the faith not of just one section, but of the entire ecclesiastical community. Indeed, it was uncharacteristic for so many great men to strive with all their might to defend the erroneous and mutually contradictory propositions of one or two individuals, or even to strive for some foolish plan in any particular field. On the contrary, following the decisions and definitions of all the ancient pastors of the Holy Church, heirs of the apostolic and universal truth, they preferred to sacrifice themselves rather than the universally agreed faith of all antiquity. This is why they were deemed worthy of such renown that they are rightly and justly revered not only as confessors, but as the greatest of confessors.
...And their behavior is nothing new. It has always been a tradition in the Church that the more God-loving someone was, the more resolutely they opposed new inventions. History is replete with such examples. But, to avoid going into too much detail, we'll just pick out one...
Agrippina, Bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, contrary to Holy Scripture, contrary to the canon of faith of the entire Church, contrary to the opinion of all other pastors, contrary to custom and the statutes of his ancestors, was the first of all mortals to devise the idea of rebaptism. This arrogance caused so much harm that it not only served as a model for all heretics to desecrate sacred things, but also gave some Orthodox a pretext for error.
Then everyone everywhere rebelled against this news, and all the pastors of the Church in every land, with their characteristic zeal, rejected it. Then the primate of the apostolic see, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, opposed it. 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 indispensable condition of piety is the rule that, just as the fathers believed, so too should their children imprint it in their faith; that our duty is not to lead religion wherever we wish, but to follow where it leads us; and that the modesty and dignity of a Christian is not to pass on what is ours to our descendants, but to preserve for them what was received from their ancestors.
What was the outcome of the whole matter then?
What other than the usual and everlasting! Antiquity was retained, and novelty rejected... What influence did the African Council itself have, which subsequently confirmed this innovation? By the grace of God, none: everything, like a dream, like a fable, like an absurdity, was then discarded, trampled upon, destroyed.
And – what a marvelous turn of events! – the inventors of that opinion are recognized as Orthodox, and the followers as heretics, the teachers are permitted, and the students are condemned, the writers of works in its justification will be the sons of the kingdom, and their defenders will be subjected to Gehenna 3 .
Indeed, who would be so foolish as to doubt that the luminary of all the saints, all the bishops, all the martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, and his other companions will reign eternally with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, would be so impious as to deny that the Donatists and other corrupters, who cite the authority of that council to justify rebaptism, will burn in unquenchable flames with the devil? It seems to me that this outcome, under divine inspiration, was brought about especially by the cunning of those who, plotting to launch their heresy under a false name, often take up some obscure work of some ancient figure, seemingly favorable to their teachings because of its obscurity, in order to demonstrate that what they preach, whatever it may be, they are not the first and not the only ones to preach. I consider the impiety of such men doubly deserving of abhorrence, both because they are unafraid to intoxicate others with the poison of heresy, and because they, so to speak, cast the memory of a holy man to the winds, as if he were lifeless dust, and disgrace those opinions of his that should have been buried in silence by raising them anew. They follow exactly in the footsteps of their teacher Ham, who not only neglected to cover the nakedness of his venerable father Noah, but even told others of it in ridicule, thereby earning the curse of this sin even upon his descendants. His blessed brothers acted quite differently. They refused to see the nakedness of their venerable father with their own eyes, nor allow others to mock it; but they covered him, as Scripture says, with their faces turned backwards. That is, they neither approved of the holy man's error, nor exposed it to shame, and for this they received as a reward a generous blessing for their descendants. But let's return to the subject.
The immutability of the dogmatic teaching of faith
Therefore, we must be extremely wary of the sin of betraying our faith and violating Orthodoxy. We are warned against this not only by the discipline of church practice, but also by the judgment of Apostolic authority.
Everyone knows how strongly, how sternly, how persistently the blessed Apostle Paul rebukes those who, with incomprehensible frivolity, so quickly passed from Him who called them into the grace of Christ to another gospel, although the gospel cannot be different ( Gal. 1:6-7 ); who chose for themselves teachers according to their own whim, turned their ears away from the truth, turned to fables ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4 ) and are subject to condemnation for having rejected their first faith ( 1 Tim. 5:12 ). About people who deceived them, the same Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Romans: "I urge you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them; "For such men do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by flattery and eloquent speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" ( Rom. 16:17-18 ). They "creep into houses and deceive women loaded with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" ( 2 Tim. 3:6-7 ); they are "empty talkers and a deceiver, and... subvert whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for dishonest lucre's sake" ( Titus 1:10-11 ); "men of corrupt minds, ignorant concerning the faith" ( 2 Tim. 3:8 ); "proud and knowing nothing, but addicted to questioning and strivings about words" ( 1 Tim. 6:4 ). Their "profane and empty babbling" greatly promotes ungodliness, "and their talk... spreads like canker" ( 2 Tim. 2:16-17 ). It is good, however, what is further written about them: "But they will not prosper much, for their folly will be manifest to all" ( 2 Tim. 3:9 ).
When some of this kind of people, peddling their errors throughout the provinces and cities, came also to the Galatians, and when the Galatians, having listened to them, felt a sort of aversion to the truth and, casting aside the manna of the universal teaching, began to delight in the impurities of heretical novelty; then Paul used the full authority of his apostolic power and with the utmost severity defined: "But even if we ," he said, " or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" ( Gal. 1:8 ). What do his words mean: "But even if we" ? Why did he not say, "But even if I"? This means: even Peter, even Andrew, even John, even if finally the whole host of the apostles should preach to you something different from what we have not preached, let them be accursed.
What a stunning threat! To confirm the immutability of the former faith, the Apostle spared neither himself nor the other apostles!
Moreover, he says, "even if an angel from heaven preached to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema ." It was not enough for him to mention the beings of human nature to protect the faith he had once delivered: he also embraced angelic superiority. "Even if we ," he says, " or an angel from heaven ." This does not mean that the holy heavenly angels could actually sin; but this is what he means by this: even if the impossible were to happen, whoever might attempt to change the faith he had once delivered, let him be anathema. Perhaps these words were spoken by chance, or escaped from him involuntarily, through some human passion, and were not prescribed by God's will? Not at all. In his further speech, he repeats the same thing with redoubled insistence and instills with particular force: "As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed" ( Gal. 1:9 ). He did not say: if anyone preaches to you anything other than what you have previously received, let him be blessed, glorified, accepted, but – let him be anathema, let him be, that is, excommunicated, separated, cast out, lest the cruel plague of one sheep stain the blameless flock of Christ with a poisonous infection.
But perhaps this was prescribed only to the Galatians? If so, then what is further mentioned in the same epistle, such as: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become vain, provoking one another, envying one another" ( Gal. 5:25-26 ), was also prescribed only to the Galatians! But this is absurd; these moral commandments are equally binding on everyone. Consequently, the above-mentioned warning regarding faith is equally binding on everyone, and just as no one is allowed to irritate or envy another, so no one is allowed to accept anything that the universal Church has not always preached.
Or perhaps the anathematization of those who proclaimed anything other than what was first proclaimed was commanded only then, but is no longer commanded now? If so, then what the Apostle says here also follows: "I say then, walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" ( Gal. 5:16 ), was also commanded only then, but is no longer commanded! But such a thought is impious and at the same time pernicious. And from this it necessarily follows that if the latter commandment must be observed at all times, then the law concerning the immutability of the faith has also been established for all times. Consequently, proclaiming anything to Orthodox Christians that they have not previously accepted has never been, is never allowed, and never will be permitted; and the anathematization of those who proclaim anything other than what has been once and for all accepted has always been, always must be, and always will be necessary.
If this is so, then who will be so bold as to dare to proclaim anything that has not been proclaimed before in the Church, or so frivolous as to accept anything other than what he has 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 universe, the heavenly mysterist, the Apostle Paul proclaims in his writings, proclaims to all, proclaims for all times, to all places, and again repeats his voice: whoever proclaims a new dogma, let him be anathema! And on the other hand, some toads, gnats, dying flies, like the Pelagians, buzz at the Orthodox: we are the founders, we are the establishers, we are the interpreters, condemn what you maintained, maintain what you condemned, reject the ancient faith, the paternal decrees, the testaments of the ancestors, and in their place accept... and what will you accept?! It's scary to utter, because all this is so arrogant that it seems impossible not only to affirm but even to refute it without somehow staining oneself.
Why, someone might ask, does God often allow certain prominent figures in the Church to proclaim new things to the Orthodox? The question is fair and deserves to be examined in greater detail and at greater length. However, it must be resolved not by one's own understanding, but by the guidance of God's law, the model of Church teaching. So, let us listen to Saint Moses. He will explain to us why He sometimes allows learned men, even called prophets by the Apostle for the grace of their knowledge ( 1 Cor. 14:29 ), to express new dogmas, usually allegorically called "other gods" in the Old Testament—for the simple reason, of course, that heretics revere their opinions just as pagans revere their gods.
Blessed Moses writes in Deuteronomy: “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams ,” that is, a teacher appointed in the Church, whom his students or listeners consider to be teaching as if by revelation from above – what then?
“And he will show you ,” he says, “ a sign or a wonder, and that sign or wonder will come true, of which he spoke to you” - in a certain sense he indicates a truly great and so knowledgeable teacher that his followers consider him not only to have known human things, but also to be able to foresee what is above man, such as their disciples boast: Valentinus, Donatus, Photinus, Apollinaris and others like them - what next?
"And he will say further ," he says, " let us follow other gods, which you do not know, and let us serve them" —who are these other gods, if not alien errors, previously unknown to you, that is, new and unheard of? "And let us serve them ," that is, let us believe them, let us follow them—what finally?
“Then do not listen ,” he says, “ to the words of this prophet, or this dreamer . ”
Why, then, tell me, is God not forbidden to teach what God also forbids to hear? "For ," He says, " the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" ( Deut. 13:1-3 ). It has become clearer than ever why God's providence sometimes allows certain church teachers to preach all sorts of new dogmas: " The Lord your God is testing you ," He says !
So, all true Orthodox must know that it is their duty to follow the Church in accepting its teachers, and not to follow the teachers in leaving the faith of the Church.
He is truly and truly Orthodox who is devoted to the Church, to the body of Christ, to the truth of God with all his soul, who places nothing above the Divine religion, above the universal faith: neither authority, nor love, nor gifts, nor eloquence, nor the philosophy of any man, but, despising all this and remaining in the faith firm, constant, unshakable, considers it his duty to maintain only that and believe only that which is known to have been held in agreement by the whole universal Church from ancient times , and what he learns that it is later introduced by someone alone apart from all, or contrary to all the saints, as something new and unheard of, then he recognizes as relating not to religion, but rather to temptation, also heeding in particular the saying of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: “There must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you” ( 1 Cor. 11:19 ). It is as if the Apostle were saying: the perpetrators of heresies are not immediately uprooted by God, “so that those who are proven may be revealed,” that is, so that it may be seen how firmly, how faithfully and unwaveringly each one loves the universal faith.
And indeed, as soon as any novelty appears, the heaviness of the grain and the lightness of the chaff immediately become apparent. Then, without much effort, everything that wasn't weighing down the threshing floor is swept away. Some fly off entirely, to who knows where. Others are so alarmed that they are afraid to flee and ashamed to stay—bewildered, half-dead, half-alive... Now, with increasing delusion, they rush wherever the wind takes them, now, having come to their senses, they beat back like waves. Now, with blind courage, they rush toward what is obviously unknown to them, now, with irrational fear, they are frightened by what is completely known, and they don't know at all where to go, where to return, what to seek, what to flee, what to hold on to, what to leave behind. However, this confusion of wavering and indecisive feelings, if only they would care to delve into it, is the medicine given to them by God's mercy. Outside the safest haven of universal faith, they are tormented, tortured, and almost completely exhausted by various stormy thoughts, so that they may lower the raised sails of their exalted minds, inopportunely unfurled by the winds of novelty, and return and once again anchor in the most reliable haven of the serene and benevolent Mother Church; having vomited out the bitter and disturbing waves of error, so that they may then drink in the life-giving streams of spring water. Let them study well what they did not know well, and let them comprehend what is comprehensible in the entire content of the Church's dogmatic teaching, and let them believe what is impossible.
And when this is so, then again and again reflecting and pondering over this subject, I cannot sufficiently marvel at such madness of some people, such wickedness of a blinded mind, such passion, finally, for error, that they are not content with the once-faithful and anciently accepted rule of faith, but every day seek something new and new, and are always eager to add to religion, to change it, to subtract from it, as if it were not a heavenly dogma, which only needed to be once revealed, but an earthly institution, which could be perfected only by constant corrections or refutations! Meanwhile, the divine oracles proclaim: “Do not remove the ancient boundary which your fathers set” ( Prov. 22:28 ), “Do not judge above the Judge” ( Sir. 8:17 ); “Whoever breaks down a hedge will be bitten by a serpent” ( Eccl. 10:8 ).
The same is suggested by the following saying of the Apostle, by which, as if with some spiritual sword, all the criminal innovations of all heresies have been and always must be cut off: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding filthy talk and the contradictions of knowledge falsely so called, which while some clung to, they have wandered from the faith" ( 1 Tim. 6:20-21 ). After this, there are people so hardened as a block, unyielding as an anvil, stubborn as flint, that they do not yield to such pressure of heavenly words, are not broken by such weights, are not crushed by such hammers, and do not, finally, decay under such lightning! "Abhor, " says the Apostle, " filthy talk," that is, innovations. He did not say "antiquities," nor did he say "old times," but rather, by contrast, he clearly showed what to follow. If novelty is to be avoided, then antiquity must be adhered to; if novelty is obsolete, then antiquity is sacred. "And of contradictions ," he says, " of falsely so-called reason." Indeed, in heretical teachings, names are false: ignorance is there called reason, fog—clarity, darkness—light. "Having given themselves over to which ," he says, " some have strayed from the faith ." In what, then, did they sin in boasting, if not some new and unknown teaching? Listen to one of them, what they say: "Go," they say, "miserable fools, commonly called Orthodox, and learn the true faith, which no one but us understands, which was previously hidden for many centuries, and which was recently discovered and made manifest; but learn furtively and secretly—this will give you pleasure." And again: "When you have learned, teach in secret, so that neither the world hears nor the Church knows, for only a few are given to understand such an incomprehensible mystery." Is this not the voice of the harlot, calling to herself, in the Proverbs of Solomon, passers-by going their way! Here are her words: "Who is foolish, let him turn hither!" And she persuades fools: "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread in secret is pleasant ." What next? "He ," says the Wise One, " knows not that the dead are there, nor that those she invites are in the depths of the pit" ( Proverbs 9:16-18 ). Who are these dead, the Apostle explains. They are, he says, those who have strayed from the faith.
But it's worth the effort to examine this entire passage from the Apostle with redoubled attention. "O Timothy! keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and idle talk ," he says.
"Oh !" This exclamation signifies both foreknowledge and love: the Apostle foresaw the errors that would occur and wept over them beforehand.
Who is now "Timothy ," if not the whole Church in general , or not the entire class of its leaders in particular, who are obliged to guard and also to communicate to others the uncorrupted knowledge of the divine faith?
What does it mean: "Keep what has been committed" ? It means: watchmen, because there are thieves, there are enemies, so that while men sleep, they do not sow tares among the good seed of wheat which the Son of Man sowed in His field ( Matt. 13:37–39 ).
"Keep ," he says, " what has been handed down ." What is "tradition"? What has been entrusted to you, not what you invented, what you have accepted, not what you have invented—a matter not of the mind, but of teaching, not of private possession, but of public transmission; a matter that has reached you, not discovered by you; in relation to which you must be not an inventor, but a guardian; not a founder, but a follower; not a leader, but a follower.
"Keep ," he says, " what has been entrusted to you, " that is, preserve the talent of universal faith intact and undamaged. What has been entrusted to you, let it remain with you, and pass it on. You received gold, so give it back as gold. I do not want you to substitute one thing for another, I do not want you to brazenly substitute lead for gold, or fraudulently copper; I do not want gold in appearance, give it in kind.
"O Timothy ," O shepherd, O writer, O teacher! If God's gift has made you capable in mind, education, and scholarship, then be a Bezaliel ( Ex. 31:2-5 ) of the spiritual tabernacle. Polish the precious stones of divine dogma, fit them faithfully, distribute them wisely, impart to them brilliance, grace, and charm. Strive that, through your clearer exposition, people will more clearly understand what was previously less clearly believed. Seek that posterity will consciously praise what antiquity once revered unconsciously. But teach what you have been taught, and when speaking new things, do not say anything new!
The progress of dogmatics
So, someone might say, there should be no progress in religious assimilation in the Church of Christ? Of course there should be, and indeed, tremendous progress. Who is so envious of people and hateful of God that they would dare to reject this? But this progress must be genuine progress, not a change of faith.
Progress consists when one or another object is perfected in itself, while change consists when something ceases to be what it is and is transformed into something else. And so, over the course of years and centuries, let the understanding, discernment, and wisdom of each individual Christian and of all, of one person and of the entire Church, grow and advance to the highest degree, but only in the same way, that is, in the same dogma, in the same sense, in the same object of understanding.
Religion, a matter of the soul, should be likened in this respect to bodies. With advancing years, bodies unfold and develop their members, yet remain the same. The blooming years of childhood and the ripe age of old age are very different, yet those who become old are the same as those who were once children. So, although the stature and appearance of the same person may change, their nature remains unchanged, their personality remains the same. The members of infants are small, those of youths large, yet they are the same. Adults have as many members as little ones; and if anything is added with the passage of time, it all existed before in embryo, so that nothing new is later discovered in the elderly that was not already latent in children. Therefore, the true, correct law of success, the immutable and most beautiful order of growth, is undoubtedly that which, in the course of years, develops in more mature ages without fail the same component parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator has predetermined in the little ones, so that if the appearance of a person were subsequently transformed into some image not of its kind, or even if only something were added to the number of its members, or decreased in it, then the whole body inevitably either dies, or becomes deformed, or, at least, becomes weaker.
The dogmatic teaching of the Christian faith must also follow this same law of progress. Although it may grow stronger over the years, expand over time, and rise in stature over the centuries, it must remain inviolable and undamaged, whole and perfect in all its parts, in all its limbs and senses, so to speak, without the slightest change, without any loss of its content, without any alteration of its definitions.
Let me offer a comparison. In this field of the Church, our ancestors in ancient times sowed the seeds of wheat—faith. It is unjust and inconsistent with the essence of the matter that we, their descendants, instead of bread—unwavering truth—should leave behind for our heirs the weeds—errors... What was planted in our Church by God's husbandry, according to the faith of our fathers, let that very thing be cultivated and tended by the diligence of our sons, let that very thing blossom and ripen, let that very thing flourish and be perfected.
If impious untruth were once given free rein in this regard, I tremble at the terrible danger that would follow, the destruction and annihilation of religion. Then, having rejected any one part of the universal dogma, as if by custom already, and with permission, they would gradually begin to reject the other parts one after another. And then, when the parts have been rejected individually, what else would finally follow but a collective rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if they began to mix the new with the ancient, the foreign with their own, the obscene with the sacred, then this custom would inevitably spread throughout the Church, so that nothing would remain in the Church untouched, nothing undamaged, nothing whole, nothing unsullied. Instead, where once was a sanctuary of pure and immaculate truth, there would finally be a filthy den of impious and vile errors. May the goodness of God remove this obscenity from our minds! Let it remain the madness of the impious.
The Church of Christ, the careful and cautious guardian of the dogmas entrusted to her care, never changes anything in them, diminishes nothing, adds nothing, cuts off what is necessary, accepts nothing superfluous, loses nothing of her own, and appropriates nothing of others; but with all diligence strives solely to reason faithfully and wisely about the ancients, to complete and refine what was predetermined and founded in antiquity, to strengthen and confirm what has already been explained and interpreted, and to preserve what has already been confirmed and determined.
What else, finally, did she always strive to achieve with her council definitions? Was it not simply that they would later believe with prudence what they had once believed with simplicity; that they would later persistently preach what they had previously preached surreptitiously; that they would later cultivate with caution what they had previously cultivated safely? I say without hesitation, and I will always say, that the Universal Church , spurred on by the innovations of heretics, did nothing else through the definitions of her councils than confirm for posterity what she had previously received from her ancestors by tradition with her own written testimony, embodying in a few lines a multitude of things, usually expressing, for the sake of clearer understanding, by this or that new name, not a new meaning of faith.
But let us return to the Apostle. "O Timothy, guard that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and idle talk" ( 1 Tim. 6:20 ). Avoid, he says, as if from a viper, like a scorpion, like a basilisk, lest they wound you not only with a touch, but even with a glance or a breath. "Filthy talk." What kind of profane talk? Those that have nothing sacred, nothing religious, and are completely alien to the mysteries of the Church, which is the temple of God.
"Filthy talk ," that is, new dogmas, deeds, opinions, contrary to antiquity and antiquity, the acceptance of which would necessarily destroy the faith of the blessed fathers, either in whole or at least in large part, and it would be necessary to declare that all believers of all ages, all the saints, all the immaculate, ascetics, virgins, all clergy, Levites and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so many armies of martyrs, so many famous cities and villages, so many islands, regions, kings, peoples, kingdoms, nations, finally, almost the entire universe, through the universal faith united under the headship of Christ into one body, all for so many centuries wandered in ignorance, erred, blasphemed, did not know what they believed.
"Avoiding filthy idle talk" —accepting and following it has never been the work of the Orthodox, but always the work of heretics. And indeed, hasn't every heresy always arisen under a certain name, in a certain place, at a certain time? Hasn't the founder of a heresy always first separated himself from the universality and antiquity of the universal Church?
The truth of this is clearer than daylight from examples. Who, for example, before the infamous Pelagius, attached such power to human free will that he did not consider God's grace necessary to assist in good deeds in every action? Who, before his unfortunate disciple Coelestius, rejected the teaching that the entire human race is guilty of Adam's transgression? Who, before the impious Arius, dared to sever the unity of the Trinity, or before the lawless Sabellius to merge the trinity of Unity?
Examples of this kind, omitted by us out of concern for brevity, are countless. But they all clearly and obviously demonstrate that in almost all heretical societies, it has become a custom and a law to always revel in obscene innovations, to disdain the precepts of antiquity, and, through the contradictions of what they incorrectly call "reason," to suffer a shipwreck in faith. In contrast, the distinctive characteristic of the Orthodox is that they preserve the traditions and precepts of the Holy Fathers, condemning obscene innovations, according to the twice-repeated words of the Apostle: "If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed" ( Gal. 1:9 ).
The attitude of heretics to the Holy Scriptures
Now someone might ask: do heretics also make use of the testimony of Holy Scripture? They do, indeed, and in an unusually large measure. They, mind you, scour all the books of the Divine Law: the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Apostles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether with their own people or with strangers, privately or publicly, in oral conversations or in writings, in private gatherings or in public assemblies, they almost never say anything about their own beliefs that they do not also strive to underscore with the words of Scripture. Take the writings of Paul of Samosata, Priscillian, Eunomius, Jovinian, and other poisoners, and you will see in them an innumerable multitude of testimonies - you will not find almost a single page that is not tinted and colored with sayings from the New or Old Testament.
But the more one must guard against and fear them, the more they hide under the shadow of Divine Law. They know that their stench would hardly please anyone if left as it is, so they anoint themselves with the fragrance of heavenly words, so that those who would easily despise human error will not easily turn away from divine prophecies.
That is why the Savior proclaimed: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" ( Matthew 7:15 ). What is this sheep's clothing if not the sacred sayings which the prophets and apostles, with sheepish innocence, wove like fleece for the spotless Lamb who takes away the sin of the world? Who are these ravenous wolves if not the heretics, who with their fierce, bestial inventions constantly attack the sheepfolds of the Church and tear apart the flock of Christ wherever they can, and in order to sneak up on the simple-minded sheep more undetected, they hide their wolfish appearance, never abandoning their wolfish ferocity.
But what does the Savior say? "By their fruits you will know them" ( Matthew 7:16 ). That is, when they begin not only to display those divine sayings but also to reveal them, not only to reveal them externally but also to interpret them, then a bitterness will be felt, a new stench, then obscene innovations will be revealed, then you will see that the fence is being torn down, the paternal boundaries are being transgressed, the universal faith is being tempered, the church dogma is being torn to pieces.
Such were those whom the Apostle Paul condemns in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, describing them: "Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" ( 2 Cor. 11:13 ). What does it mean to "transform themselves into apostles of Christ" ? It means: the apostles cited evidence from Divine Scripture, and they did so too. The apostles cited proofs from the psalms, and they did so too. The apostles cited sayings from the prophets, and they did the same. But when they began to interpret what they cited like the apostles in a manner unrelated to the apostles, then the distinction between genuine apostles and counterfeiters, the genuine and the counterfeit, the right and the perverse, and finally, the true and the false, became clear. “And no wonder ,” continues the Apostle, “ for Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness” ( 2 Cor. 11:14–15 ).
So, whenever false apostles or false prophets or false teachers cite sayings of Holy Scripture in order to confirm their errors by a false interpretation of them, they undoubtedly, according to the instructions of the Apostle Paul, imitate the cunning tricks of their leader, to which he, of course, would never have resorted if he had not known from experience that when it is necessary to introduce seduction by an indecent error, then there is no easier way to deception than by referring to the authority of the word of God.
But how can it be seen, they will say, that the devil is in the habit of using the testimony of Holy Scripture? – Read the Gospel. It is written there: “Then the devil took Him ” – that is, the Lord Savior – “and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will give His angels charge over You, to keep You in all Your ways.’ And in their hands they will bear You up, lest You dash Your foot against a stone”” ( Matthew 4:5–6 ; Psalm 91:11–12 ).
What won't he do to these poor people who attacked the Lord Himself with Scripture? He says, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Why? Because it is written."
We must especially note and remember the instruction contained in this place, so that, knowing such an example of evangelical authority, when we see that some bring apostolic or prophetic sayings to refute the universal faith, we will not in the least doubt that it is the devil who speaks through their lips.
Indeed, as the head then spoke to the head, so now the members speak to each other: the members of the devil to the members of Christ, the perfidious to the faithful, the wicked to the pious, and heretics to the Orthodox. What exactly do they say? "If you are the son of God, throw yourself down" —that is, if you want to be the son of God and inherit the kingdom of heaven, then "throw yourself down ," cast yourself from the heights of the Church, which is also the temple of God—abandon its teachings and traditions.
And if anyone asks any heretic who instills this in him: how do you prove, on what basis do you teach that I must abandon the ancient universal faith of the Universal Church, he will immediately answer: “Because it is written ,” and will immediately present you with a thousand examples, a thousand proofs from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the Prophets, so that, interpreting them in a new and bad way, he can cast the unfortunate soul from the universal ark into the abyss of heresy.
As for those promises to which the devil subsequently pointed, it's astonishing how skilled the heretics are in deceiving the simple-minded. They dare to promise and teach that in their church (that is, in the multitude of their concord) a great, special, perhaps even peculiar grace of God is bestowed, so that everyone who belongs to it, without any labor, without any zeal, without any effort, without even asking, without even seeking, without even pushing, enjoys such favor from God that, carried in the arms of angels, protected by the protection of angels, they can never "stab their foot against a stone," can never be deceived.
Conclusion
What, someone might ask, should Orthodox Christians, sons of Mother Church, do when divine words, sayings, and promises are used by both the devil and his disciples, some of whom are false apostles, others false prophets and teachers, and all of whom are heretics? How can they distinguish truth from falsehood in view of the sayings of Holy Scripture?
Just as, according to the tradition of the saints and learned men, we said at the beginning of this entry. Namely, they must absolutely ensure that Holy Scripture is interpreted in accordance with the traditions of the whole Church and according to the directions of the universal dogmatic teaching. In the universal and apostolic Church itself, they must necessarily follow universality, antiquity, and agreement, so that if ever a part should rise against the whole, novelty against antiquity, the erroneous dissent of one, or even a minority, against the agreement of all, or at least the decisive majority of the Orthodox, then they must prefer the infallibility of the universality to the error of the part; and in the question of universality itself, they must prefer the piety of antiquity to the impropriety of novelty. Finally, when it comes to the question of antiquity itself, rather than the folly of one, or a very limited number of individuals, we should prefer, first of all, the general definitions of some Ecumenical Council, if such exist on the given subject—and if not, then what is closest to them, that is, the mutually agreed opinions of the majority of great teachers. If, with God's help, we observe this faithfully, sensibly, and diligently, we will without much difficulty discern all the criminal errors of emerging heretics.
It must be noted, however, that we are obliged to examine these concordant judgments of the ancient holy fathers with the greatest diligence and to follow them, not with regard to any minor questions of Holy Scripture, but mainly only with regard to the rule of faith 4 .
On the other hand, not all heresies should always be exposed in this manner, but only new and recent ones, appearing for the first time. ... As for ancient and long-standing heresies, there is not the slightest need for us to approach them in this way... No matter how ancient the obscenities of such heresies or schisms, we must either strike them down, if necessary, with no other authority than Holy Scripture, or else flee from them without hesitation, as from Orthodox pastors of the Church who have been afflicted by the teachings and condemned by the Ecumenical Councils.
The end. And glory to our God!
Source: https://azbyka.org/otechnik/Vikentij_Lirinskij/o_veroizlozheniyah/