The Latin quoted in the title of this post—known as
the ‘Vincentian Canon’ and/or 'Vincent's Rule'—was translated into English by
Heurtley as: “which [faith] has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”
(A Commonitory, NPNF - XI.132). This canon/rule was first expressed in the Commonitorium written
by Vincent of Lerins, and was essentially a threefold test for identifying true
doctrines from heretical ones.
Vincent discerned that heretical doctrines/teachers tended
be geographically localized, rather than dispersed throughout all the Christian
regions; as such, ‘everywhere' (ubiquity) was one of the tests. Another test
was ‘always', which meant for Vincent that true doctrines originated in
antiquity (apostolic times), and do not emerge at a later date—e.g. the
Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Apollinarians, Nestorians. And finally,
concerning the ‘by all' test, Vincent primarily had the bishops convened at the
Ecumenical Councils in mind (though not exclusively so).
Unfortunately, Vincent’s canon/rule has historically been
misused and misunderstood. An excellent antidote to such abuses is Thomas G.
Guarino’s above pictured book, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of
Doctrine (2013 – Google preview).
One of the most important points made by Guarino is that Vincent has a ‘second
rule’, and that one must correctly identify this ‘second rule’ in order to
properly interpret Vincent’s ‘first rule’; note the following:
A second essential element in interpreting the Vincentian
canon is that his first rule must always be taken in conjunction with the
Lérinian’s “second rule”: over time growth undoubtedly occurs in Christian
doctrine. (Page 6)
I shall turn to the pen of Vincent himself to expound on
what he meant concerning the development/growth of Christian doctrine. From his
A Commonitory we read:
But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no
progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being
is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid
it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For
progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it
be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the
wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole
Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much
and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind ; that is to say, in the
same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. (NPNF - XI.147, 148)
And:
From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in
the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process
of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under
cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may
supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each
kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic
interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in
that spiritual paradise from plants 'of cinnamon and balsam darnel and
wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the
Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and
taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and
ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right
that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be
cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that
they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive
proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their
completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (NPNF - XI.147, 148)
Another important part of Guarino’s book is his analysis
of Newman’s theory of development as it relates to Vincent’s. More on this at a
later date, the Lord willing…
Grace and peace,
David
