The author of the commomrorr attributed to Vincent of Lerins furnishes us with scant information concerning himself. He is the monk Peregrinus, now residing in an unnamed monastery far from urban centers. The Council of Ephesus (which took place in 431) is now three years past. The bishop of Rome is a Sixtus identifiable with Pope Sixtus III (who reigned 432-440) and Cyril is bishop of Alexandria—he reigned from 412 to 444. This gives us the year 434 for the completion of the work.

External evidence on the life and work of the author is contained principally in a notice concerning him in the book On Famous Writers1 which, late in the fifth century of our era, the presbyter Gennadius of Massilia compiled as a continuation of Jerome's work On Famous Men1:

"Vincent, a native of Gaul and presbyter in the monastery of the island of Lerina3: a man learned in the Holy Scriptures and well informed as to the church's doctrines, he composed in a very polished and lucid style, for the purpose of shunning heretical sects, a most powerful treatise to which, suppressing his own name, he gave the title Peregrinus Against Heretics. After the greater part of the second book had been lost as the result of the theft of its rough draft

1 De illustribus scriptoribus, ed. E. C. Richardson, TU 14. (1896) 83, tr. by him, NPNFj 2d ser., 3.396. Here the chapter is 65; other editions have 64. See B. Czapla, Gennadius als Literarhistoriker (Münster i. W., 1898); H. Koch, TU, 31 pt. 2; J. Madoz, Estud. Ecles. 1 x (1932) 484.

2 De viris illustribus, sometimes called Catalogus Scriptorum, tr. by Richardson, NPNF, 2d ser., 3.349-384-

3 Lerina, now called St. Honorat, is the smaller and seaward of the two islands off Cannes. The monastery was famous for^eixturies. The larger island is now called Ste, Marguerite- See A. C. Cooper-Marsdin, The History qf the Islands qf the Urins (Cambridge, 1913).

by parties unknown, he summarized its substance briefly, appended it to the first book, and published both in one volume. He died in the reign of Theodosius and Valentinian."4

Vincent's name appears in the Roman martyrology and he is commemorated on May 24, but we do not have the details of his death. His contemporary and fellow monk Eucherius,5 afterward bishop of Lyons, calls Vincent "pre-eminent alike for eloquence and wisdom" and "a jewel shining with inner splendor," adding the detail that Vincent's brother was Lupus (probably the later bishop of Troyes). So far as we are aware, the identification of Peregrinus with Vincent has been universally accepted. "Peregrinus" is therefore a pseudonym, if, indeed, it is to be read as more than a synonym for monk. The description of the book given by Gennadius neatly conforms to the state in which the work has come down to us, but no one has been convinced by PoirePs attempt6 to identify Vincent with Marius Mercator. '

Though not the only work composed by Vincent, The Com-monitory represents his chief claim to fame. The unusual word does not appear as the title in the manuscripts but is taken from the preface, in which Peregrinus tells us that he intends to write a commonitory, a reminder of his own views and for his own use, to jog the memory or supply the defects of a poor one.

The book bears throughout ample evidence of its author's acquaintance with Scripture and with the doctrinal controversies of the first four centuries. Moreover, Gennadius' favorable comments on the style are hardly exaggerated in any respect: Vincent always is clear and forceful, often brilliant, never dull. The claim that Peregrinus will write in a plain and unadorned style is a conventional pretense, for he writes, not in the language of his day, but very much better than, for example, his contemporary Sulpicius Severus. Vincent obviously had had a good education in rhetoric. Frequently there are phrases taken from authors of the best classical periods.7

* The period of joint reign is 425-450.

5 MPL 50.71 i^CSEL 31.193; MPL 50.773-CSEL 31.66. That Vincent was son of Epirochius and born at Tullie Leucorum in Prima Belgica is claimed by Hewison (Scottish Text Society «2.152) but we do not know the evidence.

6 R. M. J. Poirel, De utroque commonitorio (Nancy, 1895) a&d & edition (Nancy, 1898), refuted by Koch (TheoL Qjiartcdsckr. 81 [1899] 4*6-428).

7 Terence, Cicero, Lucretius, SaUust, Horace, and Ovid, are all ultixtiite sources of phrases which appear. On this topic see J. Madoz, Rech. de Sc. M. 39 (*95*) 461-471.

The original intent must have been to write two books. The first contains a preface and a concluding summary, followed by the following sentence of an editor: "The second commonitory has intervened but nothing more of it has survived than the last part, that is, only the summary given below." The summary, however, repeats the argument of both books, that for the second seven times longer than that for the former. Finally, there is another conclusion to the whole work.

Gennadius' claim that the second book was stolen is nothing short of an attempt to explain the curious condition of the manuscript as he read it, that is, the same condition in which we too find it. We are thus left with a perplexing problem of why the second book is missing, for which no satisfactory answer has been made.

What Vincent intends to discuss is the method for telling what catholic truth is. He begins8 with the Holy Scriptures as the source of all true doctrine, but since it is interpreted variously by various men, one needs some guide for distinguishing between the various interpretations. Here the solution is that one must examine them in the light of the church's teaching, but if the church has not yet spoken through the conclusions of some universal council, then one must use the principles of ecumenicity, antiquity, and agreement, in the words of the now famous "formula of St. Vincent of L&ins," catholic truth is quod ubique, quod semper, et quod ab omnibus creditum est, that is, what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all men. The catholic searches for what is both ancient {antiquitas or vetustas—the words are synonymous) and ecumenical (uni-versitas), but Vincent is well aware that even in these there may be some divergence, and so he adds agreement (consensus). The agreement, then, of the ancient and ecumenical church —the catholic church, that is—is his rule. Opinions not ancient in lime, opinions of one or of a few—these are to be disregarded, and only opinions of those who have remained faithfully in communion with the catholic church may be accepted. ;

Does this not prevent Christian progress or development? Not true progress (profectus), says Vincent, but it 4oes change (alteratio); that which produces somelMmg kew^mot fcmnd in antiquity, not ecumenical, is condemn^ b^ wiiaj| is clearly'to be derivedi from ^^tic^^S^^

the world of nature. What was present in the organism at conception may develop, often changing its outward appearance but never its essential nature. Old men are not what they were as infants, so far as outward appearance is concerned, but they are the same persons.

He illustrates his rule from the heresies, though this is no history of heresies. Some of them he mentions merely in passing, but three heretics, Photinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, he discusses at some length, these chosen, doubtless, because they were all involved in the Christological controversy, and the last was recent. It is clear also that though Vincent has no intent to expound the whole of Christian doctrine, he has a strong interest in the doctrines of the Trinity and incarnation, and he lets us know this by inserting, in what he calls merely a digression, his views on this important dogma (Chapters XII-XVI). Here he i^in accord with the position of that creed which bears the name of Athanasius, the Quicumque VulL Indeed, at times his language recalls that of the creed so vividly that he has been thought by some9 to have been its author. While the parallels are striking and it is perfectly clear that there is some sort of relationship between this creed and The Commonitory, the best explanation is that the unknown author of the creed was familiar with The Commonitory. In any case, since the Quicumque is only one third as long as Vincent's discussion of the incarnation, it cannot be the longer work promised us by Vincent.

The Commonitory marks an important point in the doctrinal controversy in modern times called Semi-Pelagian,10 though the only designation by which it was known in its own day was "the relics of the Pelagians" (reliquiae Pelagianorum), a phrase found in Prosper.11 The movement was found chiefly in southern Gaul, principally among the clergy of Massilia and L6rins, and its leading proponents, besides Vincent, were John Cassian and,

* Joseph Anthelmi, Nova de symbolo Atkanasiano disqtnsitio (1693); G. D. W. Ommanney, The Athanasian Creed (London, 1880), and his Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed (London, 1897). See G. Morin, Revue BMdktme 44 (1932) 205-219.

On this controversy and Vincent's part in it see Moxon's edition (pdi-xxxii); F. Loofs (NSH 10.347-349); J. Pohle (CE 13.703-706); B. B. Warfield (NPNF, 1st ser. 5.30a); E. Amaim (DTG 14.1796-1850); W. Koch (LTK 9.460 f,); G. DePlmval (EG u.286-288); Miller (RE 14.94); R. Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902) 485-493; P. DeLetter (ACW 14.3-6 and notes 7-17 on pp. 158 f.). 11 Prosper to Augustine in the latter's letter 225 (MPL 33.1106).

later, Faustus of Riez. The "Semi-Pelagians" themselves would have been quite horrified to learn that they were destined to be called such, for they were in their own estimation vigorous opponents of all that Pelagius and Caelestius had stood for, and they were strongly convinced that their own view was wholly orthodox and that Augustine's extreme view, to which they were opposed, was error, if not heretical, as Vincent boldly calls it. The controversy had broken out in the closing years of Augustine's life and he was thus far the only writer among their opponents. Though by 432, to be sure, a bishop of Rome had taken up the fight on Augustine's behalf, there was not as yet— and there was not to be for another century—any official condemnation by a church council.

Briefly, it may be stated that Pelagius' teaching denies the necessity of divine grace in effecting man's salvation. By free will man may choose to ask for salvation, divine grace being, though helpful, not necessary. This view, emphasizing the importance of man's part in the process, is the direct opposite of the Augustinian doctrine of grace and free will, in which prevenient grace is regarded as an absolute necessity before man can hope for salvation; so great a necessity, indeed, that Augustine goes one step farther and expounds his doctrine of predestination, whereby God predetermines who shall be saved (the elect) and who shall not (the damned).

As the Semi-Pelagians understood Augustine, his view was too rigid, too extreme, and it must be admitted that after his death, later theologians, perhaps as a result of the work of the Semi-Pelagians, took a somewhat less extreme position.12 The Semi-Pelagian point of view may perhaps be stated as follows: first, Pelagius and his confreres were absolutely and unequivocally heretical—the Council of Carthage had said so; secondly, the beginning of faith (initium fidd), the asking for salvation by man, is the result of the power of free will, but the faith itself and its increase (augmentum fidd) are absolutely dependent upon God; thirdly, while the gift of divine grace is a doctrine to be maintained against Pelagius in so far as every strictly natural merit is excluded, this does not prevent nature and its works, that is, man alone, from having a ^ certain claim to grace; fourthly, perseverance, that is, continuance in the faith after the initial act, is not a special gift of grace,

1* DeLetter (ACW 14.5) speaks of a "partial withdrawal of the Augustimans* expressed in the Capitula seu praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae episcoporum auctoritates de gratia Dei" (MPL 51.205-212). ; „

since the justified man may of his own power persevere to the end.

The Gallic clergy had probably first heard of Augustine's views on this subject from a reading of his works On Grace and Free Will and On Rebuke and Grace™ which were written in 426 or 427, and, though not addressed to them, doubtless had been circulated widely. The earliest surviving statement of the Semi-Pelagian position occurs, probably, in a work of John Gassian, the Conference XIII with the Abbot Chaeremon,14 but Augustine was informed of the Semi-Pelagian doctrines by two letters15 about them which came to him from Prosper and Hilary, laymen in the Gallic church. In his book On the Predestination of the Saints, written about 428 or 429, he refers to the Semi-Pelagians in not unkindly vein, in Chapters 2 and 38. At about the time when John Cassian was writing, Vincent must have been busy on a work known to us as the Objectiones Vincentianae, now extant only in the form in which it appears in Prosper's counterattack, Replies to the Sections of the Vincentian Objections on Behalf of Augustine's Teaching.16 That the "Objections" are the work of our Vincent was long doubted, but the fifth objection bears such certain evidence of being by the same hand as The Com-monitory that it is now believed that our Vincent wrote them. Another work of the same period and same doctrinal point of view, the Capitula Calumniantium Gallorum, has not yet been certainly proved to be his, though it is of the same school of thought.17'

In the end Prosper became the most determined Gallic

13 The Augustinian works to be consulted are: (a) Epist. 217 ad Vitalem (MPL 33.978-990 «CSEL 57.403-425), nottr. in NPNF; (b) Epist. 194 ad Sixtum (MPL 33.874-891 «CSEL 57.176-214), not tr. in NPNF—the Sixtus was afterward Pope Sixtus III; (c) De gratia et libero arbitrio (MPL

. 44.881-912, not in CSEL), tr. NPNF, ist ser. 5.425-465; (d) De correptione et gratia (MPL 44.915-946, not in CSEL), tr. NPNF, ist ser., 5.467-491;

(e) Epist. 225 Prosper aa Augustinum and Epist. 226 Hilarius ad Augustinum (MPL 33.1 tmnt 112 »51.61-74-»CSEL 57.454-481), not tr. in NPNF;

(f) De praedestinatione sanctorum (MPL 45.959-992, not in CSEL), tr. NPNF, ist ser., 5.493-519; (g) De dono perseverantiae (MPL 45.993-1034, not in CSEL), tr. NPNF, ist ser., 5.521-552.

14 Collatio XIII Abbatis Chaeremonis (MPL 49.887-954«CSEL 13.361-396), tr. NPNF, 2d ser., 11.422-425. See Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, a Study in Prwdtm Monasticism (Cambridge^ 1950) ui-120; L. Christian!, Jean Cassien (Paris, 1946).

Epist. 225-226,

16 Pro Augustim doctrina responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vinceniimaxtm (MPL

45.1843-1850-51.177-186). vt MPL 45.1835-1844-51.155-174. See also tbid.9 51.185.

defender of Augustinianism. With Hilary he went to Rome and succeeded in interesting Pope Celestine I (422-432) in writing to a group of Gallic bishops that letter which Vincent cites In The Commonitory (Ch. XXXII) for his own purposes. Prosper also wrote a Letter to Rufinus on Grace and Free Will Against the Conferencer (John Cassian),18 a work long thought to be by Augustine. Not content with this, he even took to verse and composed a poem of some thousand hexameters to which he gave the Greek title of Peri Achariston19 and also two Epigrams Against Augustine's Traducer.20 In his Call to All Nations,11 and subsequently, he "devoted the utmost pains to soften down with noble tact the roughness and abruptness of many of his master's propositions," 22 but Semi-Pelagianism, though now rebuked by a bishop of Rome, was not dead, and was not officially condemned by any council until the Synod of Orange, convoked by Caesarius of Aries on July 3, 529, adopted twenty-five canons which declared the view heretical. *

This brings us to the part played in the controversy by The Commonitory itself. Frequently throughout the work there are covert allusions to Augustine, though never by name, and most of them would probably not have been noticed by anyone had there not been in Chapter XXVI a specific allusion to an unnamed heresy clearly identifiable with Augustine's views. Moreover, the letter23 already mentioned, which Celestine wrote to the Gallic bishops at the instance of Prosper and Hilary, directed beyond the slightest shadow of doubt against the Semi-Pelagians of southern Gaul, is actually cited by Vincent as a praiseworthy example of a bishop of Rome who gave a directive to other bishops to suppress a neresy in their dioceses.

is Epist. ad Rufinum de gratia et libera arbitrio contra eollatorem (MPL 45. 1795-1&02 =51.213-276),.

MPL 51,91-148. The Greek title is ironically Latinized as De ingratis> "On the Graceless Ones," and there is & deliberate pun here. See F. J. E. Raby, Hist, of Christian Latin Poetry (Oxford, 2d ed., 1953), PP- 84 f., where two elegiacs are set as if a stanza.

20 Epigrammata in obtrectatorem Augustini (MPL 41.149-202).

21 De vocatione ommumgentiwn (MPL 51-647). It also appears In the earlier edition of MPL among Ambrose' works but in the 1879 edition (MPL 17. u 67) it is excluded, though noted. The question of the authorship has been debated. P. DeLetter, who has recently translated it in AGW 14 (1952), accepts it as by Prosper, and in his dissertation J. J. Young has studied its style (Cath. Univ. Pair. Stud. 87 [1952]), concluding that the clatisulae show it to be by Prosper. 22 So Pohle. Cited by Vincent (XXXII), printed MPL 50.528-537 as Epist. 21 ad Episcopos Galliarum; dated bf Madpz between June, 431 and July, 432. SeeD. M. Gappuyns, Reck, de TMLJne.etMed. 1 (1929) 319, n. f

He does not tell us what this heresy was. One would suppose it was one which he himself opposed, but the truth is that it was a view that he had espoused in the Objectiones Vincentianae and also at least once, then clearly, in The Commonitory. Vincent's position here seems a bit equivocal, and he may also be equivocal in citing the letter of Gapreolus of Carthage to the Council of Ephesus, for though we do not know Capreolus5 precise views on the doctrine of grace, they were probably influenced by Augustine.

The question therefore arises as to whether The Commonitory was written primarily to cloak an attack upon Augustine, or whether the chief purpose was the ostensible one of providing a rule for distinguishing heresy when it arises, and the allusions to Augustine merely incidental to the main purpose. This unsolved question has been further complicated by a recent discovery. Many years ago Lehmann had printed a reference to an unknown work by Vincent contained in an anonymous medieval compendium of passages drawn from Cassiodorus24:

"The book of Vincent, priest of the island of L6rins, which he composed from the works of the blessed Augustine and sent to Saint Sixtus the Pope, is useful. On this account I have reread it."

No notice was, however, taken of this passage by any student of Vincent until in 194025 Father Madoz published the news that he had found in a manuscript formerly in the library of Ripoll in Spain a florilegium of Augustinian quotations, with a preface and a conclusion that clearly bear the stigmata of Vincent's style, namely, "excerpts gathered from all of Augustine of blessed memory by Vincent, priest of the island of L6rins, of holy memory." Not only can there be no doubt that the author of The Commonitory and the author of the excerpts are one and the same, but it is also undeniable that whereas the former contains a sharp attack upon Augustine, the latter contains only admiration for him.

How, then, can these conflicting points of view be reconciled? Madoz' answer to this perplexing question is this: in The Commonitory , Vincent is discussing doctrines (grace and predestination) on which he differed markedly from the bishop of Hippo, whereas in the excerpts he is discussing the Trinity and ^ incarnation, concerning which he was in wholehearted agreement with Augustine. Hence, the different tone.

It is not our purpose to present here a full account of the

influence of The Commonitory on the whole course of subsequent thought. It goes without saying that a work embodying, as it does, in its great formula, a principle so closely in accord with the practice of the medieval church toward new doctrines, would have been expected to be read and cited again and again in medieval writers. Yet The Commonitory appears to have been neglected in that period, and is not cited in any of the medieval catalogues. The reason for this neglect lies probably in the fact that its author bore the taint of a doctrine condemned after 529 as heretical.

The Commonitory was, however, of influence among the forces at work for Christian unity at the time of the Reformation, though Madoz calls it "the apple of discord." Its point of view was adopted as his own by an irenical writer of the Erasmian school, George Cassander (1513-1566) ,26 His plea for unity was on the basis of the "fundamental articles" of the faith, ascertainable in Scripture and the Fathers, and essentially comprised in the Apostles' Creed. Authority for him, as with his contemporary, George Witzel, stops with the first five centuries, so far as what is requisite for unity is concerned. A little later another writer of much the same point of view as regards tradition was Peter Meiderlin (1582-1651), who added to his chief doctrine of the Spirit and of Love such doctrines as the church has approved through decisions of valid councils, in which case he too can accept the formula of Vincent.27 So also Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) argued for abandonment of the controversial figures of the Reformation like Luther and Calvin, and for a turn to irenic figures like Erasmus and Melanchthon, or, better still, to the witness of the early church, spedfically to The Commonitory and its formula.28

In the Church of England, Vincent has always found his supporters, especially among those within it who have put emphasis on the claim that it has deep roots within the early church. For example, Richard Baxter (1615-1691) in his Gildas Salvianus: The Reformed Pastor says:

"We must learn to difference well between certainties and uncertainties, necessaries and unnecessaries, catholic verities—

See John T. McNeill, Urtitive Protestantism (New York, 1930) 271, and in Ruth Rouse and S. G. Neill, History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948 (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1954) 38; P. Tschackert (NSH 2.348 f.). 27 See Martin Schmidt in Rouse and Neill, op. dt.9 82. 2* See Schmidt, op. cit94; also Carl Bertheau in NSH 7.287 s.v. "MeUeniusi Rupertus," which was Meiderlin's pseudonym-

quae ab omnibus, ubique et semper sunt retentae—and private opinions; and to lay the stress of the church's peace upon the former and not upon the latter." 29

In this connection, also, Newman should be consulted, particularly his Apologia pro Vita Sua and his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.30

Among Roman Catholics since the Reformation, Vincent has enjoyed a varied repute. Baronius calls The Commonitory a "little work clearly of gold"; Cardinal Bellarmine, "Small in size but very large in virtue"; the Benedictine Mabillon, "A little book not large but golden, and to be committed to memory."31 Pope Benedict XIV remarked in 1748 that if in Vincent and Hilary anything human [i.e., unorthodox] appeared, they were to be excused, since in their time catholic doctrine had not yet been defined.32 A catechism printed in the diocese of Wiirzburg during the pontificate of Leo XII (1823-1829) contained a question to which Vincent's formula was given as the answer, but the Roman censors commented on this that the rule of Vincent was not the only criterion of dogma, nor a particular one, nor was it a definition of the church.33 The formula played its part at the Vatican Council of 1870,34 and in the conversations at Malines.35 Recently, however, the French Dominican Congar has this to say in his remarkable book Divided Christendom36:

See John T. Wilkinson's edition (London, Epworth Press, 1939), P-Baxter was, of course, quoting the formula from memory.

30 C. F, Harrold, ed,, J. H. Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua (New York, 1947), pp. 98, 178; An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (New York, 1949), consult index s,v. Sàint Vincent, On Vincent's formula in other Anglican writers, see R. S. Moxon, Modernism and Orthodoxy : An Attempt to Re-Assess the Value of the Vincentian Canon in Regard to Modem Tendencies of Thought (London, 1924); Robert M. Grant, The Bible in the Churck9 A Short jHistory of Interpretation (New York, Macmillan, 1948), 94-97,

31 G. Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum (Ambères, 1613) p. 220; R. Gard. BeUarmine, De Scriptoribus EccUsiasticis 440 (Naples, 1862) p. 56; J. Mabillon, Tractatus de studiis monasticis (Venice, 1770) 1.2, ch. 4, p, 87; cf. also the title of Winzet's translation of The Commonitory.

Benedict XIV, Littera apostolica de mva martyrologii editione, July 1, 1748, n. 31, cited by Madoz (88). 33 H. Kahn, in KL 12.987 f.

34 See J. B. Gard. Franzelin, De Divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1st ed., 1870; 3d ed., 1882), thesis 24; T. Granderath, Geschichte des vatikmischm Komis (Freiburg i. Br. 1906), 2.63* n.

33 Lord Halifax, The Conversations at Matines 1921-1925 (London, 1930) 281 f.

3« M. J. Gongar, Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem qfMé^ union, tr. from Chrétiens Désunis by M* A. Bousfield (London* £$§§),

"Now this 'canon/ which can be clearly understood in a perfectly [Roman] Catholic sense, is here put into the hands of historians, who make use of it on the normal lines of historical study. The mistake of those who set it up, thus interpreted, as the ultimate standard of ecclesiastical faith, is to subject that faith in the last analysis to the judgment of professors and not of the apostolic succession of the magisterium regarded as such. If this ccanon5 were really the standard of Catholicism, then the supreme magisterium would reside with historians, for it is their business to say, from a study of the texts, what has been believed always, everywhere, by everyone. The magisterium, always living in the Church by the twofold principle of the apostolic succession and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, simply declares what is the belief of the universal Church. The past may be known by the fact of the present; the present is not determined by a reference to the past. Here we touch upon a decisive issue between the Protestant Reformation and the Church, for the very idea of reformation is involved. Is the nature of the apostolic Church such that, having fundamentally erred, she can be brought back to the truth and reformed by professors in the name of critical study? Protestantism only exists in virtue of an affirmative answer to this question, justified by the Vincentian 'canon.'35

The Jesuit Madoz, the foremost patristic scholar in Spain and the living authority who has studied Vincent most intensively, points out what he considers Vincent's defects: The point of view is negative and the solution is individualistic. Moreover, from the Roman point of view, it is faulty to omit any reference to the dogma of apostolic succession.

The Commonitory has been extremely popular. It has been printed, so DeLabriolle tells us, more than a hundred and fifty times, counting Latin texts and translations into the various vernaculars. The present translation was made from the text of the excellent edition by Reginald Stewart Moxon in the Cambridge Patristic Texts (Cambridge, 1915). This was based on collation of all four manuscripts and nine editions, and is the only edition thus far to have an adequate introduction and full commentary in English.

A complete bibliography would occupy many pages. Of Latin texts the only ones that are still of much value are the following: Etienne de Baluze, three editions (Paris, 1663, 1669, 1684), the third often reprinted, especially in J. P. Migne's Patrologiae cursus completes: Series Latina (Paris, 1844), Vol. 50; in H. Hiirter's SS Patrtm Opuscula Selecta 10 (Innsbruck, 1880), p. 183. The spirit of tMs work is marvelously irenic: Christians not in commu&idn with Rome are treated as brothers.

and R. M. J. Poirel's Vincentii Peregrini seu alio nomine Marii Mercatoris Lerinensis Commonitoria duo (Nancy, 1898). Joseph Jessing printed a Latin text in usum scholarum (Columbus, Ohio, 1898), from a Milan edition of 1805. G. A. Jülicher published his revision of Sichard's editio princeps (Basle, 1528) in Krüger5s Sammlung ausgew. kirch. u. dogmengesch. Quellenschrifte 10 (Leipzig, ist ed., 1906; Tübingen, 2d ed., 1925); and G. Rauschen gave us a fresh examination of the manuscripts in his Florilegium Patristicum (Bonn, 1906).

Ninian Winzet alias Wingate (1518-1592), a Roman Catholic opponent of John Knox (see Diet of Nat Biogr. 21.707 f.), issued at Antwerp in 1563 A rieht goldin büke written in Latin about XI C zeris passit and neulie translated in Scottis be Miniane Winzeit a catholik Preist, reprinted as "Certaine Tractates . . . and a Translation" by James K. Hewison for the Scottish Text Society (Edinburgh-London, 1887-1890), Vols. 15, 22. This was dedicated to Mary, Queen of Scots. The language is intelligible to English readers with the help of Hewison's notes.

E. B. Pusey included in his Library of the Fathers (London-Oxford, 1837; reprinted, London-Belfast, 1874) a revision of a 1651 anonymous translation preserved in a Bodleian manuscript (8vo D. 261 Line.). Later translations include one by J. Stock (London, 1879), with notes; another by C. A. Heurtley (NPNF, 2d ser., 11.123-159 [New York, 1894]); a third by T. H. Bindley in Early Christian Classics (London-New York, 1914), and, most recently, still another by Rudolph E. Marcus in Fathers of the Church (New York, 1949) 7.255-332 (Rauschen's text is followed, with some of his notes).

On Vincent's life and work the most useful discussions, besides Moxon's introduction, are the following: G. Bardy, article in DTC 15.3045-3055; P. DeLabriolle, Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne (Paris, 2d ed., 1924) 568-570, tr. by H. Wilson (New York, 1925) 425 f.; the 2d ed. revised by G. Bardy (Paris, 1947) 2.649-655; G. A. Jülicher, article in RE 00.670-675, revised and abridged in NSH 12.192-194; H. Kihn, article in KL 12.985-989; Hugo Koch, "Vincentius von Lerinum und Marius Mercator" (TheoL Quartalschr. 81 [1899] 396-434), and his "Vincenz von Lerin und Gennadius" (TU 31 =3d ser., I [1907] 37-58); Jules Lebreton, "Saint Vincent de Lérins et saint Augustine" {Reck de Sc. ReL 30 [1940] 368 £), and the following, all by José Madoz S J.: "Contra quien escritio San Vicente de Lerins su Conmonitorio" (.Estudios Ecles. 10 [1931] 534); "El testimonio de Gennadio sobre s. Vicente de

Lerins" (ibid, n [1932] 484); "El concepto de la tradición en S. Vicente de Lerins" (Analecta Gregoriana 5 [Rome, 1933], by-far the ablest discussion in any language); "El Conmonitorio de San Vicente de Lerins" (Madrid, 1935), a Spanish translation; "Un tratado desconocido de San Vicente de Lerins" (Gregorianum 21 [1940] 75-94); and "Cultura humanistica de San Vicente de Lerins su Conmonitorio" (Reck, de Se. Reí. 39 [1951] 461-471).

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment