(R. SEEBERG.)
Brsuiocrapuy: Histoire littéraire de la France, xviii. 449- 515; J. Quétif and J. Echard, Scriptores ordinis predicatorum, i. 212-240, 300 sqq:, Paris, 1719; A. Touron, Hist. des hommes illustres de Vordre de S. Dominique, i. 186, Paris, 1743; J. F. Eckhardt, Nachricht von seltenen Biichern der Bibliothek zu Eisenach, pp. 31-83, Hisenach, 1775; F. Schlosser, Vincenz von Beauvais, 2 vols., Frankfort, 1819; J. B. Bourgeat, Htudes sur Vincent de Beauvais, Paris, 1856; E. Boutaric, Examen des sources du speculum . . . de Vincent de Beauvais, Paris, 1863; idem, Vincent de Beauvais et la connaissance de l’antiquité classique au xriit. siecle, ib. 1875; A. Stéckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, ii. 345 saqq., Mainz, 1865; T. Desbarraux-Bernard, Htude bibliographique sur Vincent dé Beauvais, Paris, 1872; W. Gass, in ZKG, i (1876), 365—- 396, ii (1877), 332-365, 510-536; H. Brosien, in NA, iv (1879), 437-439, 463, 500; B. Hauréau, Hist. de la philosophie scolastique, ii. 1, pp. 186 sqq., Paris, 1880; idem, Notices et extraits, v. 110-113, ib. 1892; L. Kellner, Skizzen und Bilder aus der Hrziehungsgeschichte, i. 184 sqq., Ussen, 1880; R. Friedrich, Vicentius von Beauvais als Pédagog, Leipsic, 1888; C. Giambelli, Di Vincenzo Bellovacense, Rome, 1886; M. de Wulf, Hist. de la philosophie médiévale, pp. 381-382, Louvain, 1900, 2d ed., 1905; KL, xii. 973-978; Lichtenberger, ESR, xii. 397; Biographie universelle, xlix. 119 sqq.
VINCENT OF LERINS: Presbyter of Lérins (5 m. s. of Cannes); flourished about the middle of the fifth century. According to Gennadius (De vir. ill., Ixv.), he was deeply versed in the Bible and in dogmatic theology, wrote against heretics, and died during the reign of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. Eucherius, in his Instructiones (CSEL, xxxi. 66), describes him as ‘‘ preeminent in eloquence and learning ” and as one of the instructors of his son. Gennadius was acquainted with only a single work by Vincent, written under the pseudonym of Peregrinus (“pilgrim”), the Adversum hereticos, commonly known as the Commonitorium or Commonttoria (eds. are by J. Sicard, Basel, 1528, poorly reprinted by J. Coster, Antwerp, 1560, and Leyden, 1572; S. Baluze, Paris, 1663, 1684, and Augsburg, 1757, this last taken into MPL, 1. 637 sqq.; Klupfel, Vienna, 1809; Pusey, Oxford, 1838;
Hurter, Innsbruck, 1880; with Eng. transl., Huddersfield, 1880, and London, 1885; G. A. Jiilicher, Freiburg, 1895). His work was apparently written some three years after the Council of Ephesus, i.e., about 434. According to his own statements, he composed it simply to aid his weak memory, not for publication; but nevertheless he found it advisable to lay the book before a wider circle, despite its stylistic faults.
One point in the transmission of the Commonitorium, however, remains uncertain. According to chap. xxviii., Vincent, after exhausting the theme of the first Commonitorium, desired to begin anew the demonstration of the ‘‘ rule of the faith of the Church ” from the history of a council (the Council of Ephesus). Instead of this, chap. xxix. marks the end of the second book, and the remainder of the work is devoted to a brief recapitulation of what was said in both books. This was the condition in which Gennadius found the Commonitorium, which he explained by saying that the main portion of the second book had been stolen from the author in its rough draft, whereupon Vincent had briefly summarized the contents of this second book, had appended a new chapter to the first part, and let the whole appear as one book. In the work of Vincent himself there is no trace of such a reason for his recapitulation, and the statement of Gennadius is at best a hypothesis to explain the absence of the second book. The explanation seems to be that Vincent had both books completed before writing the concluding sections, but foresaw that the length of the second book and the mass of documents cited in it would lead many readers to skip it. He had accordingly made a mere excerpt of the second book, since for the first book he might count on close attention. The first book was then transcribed entire, but only the excerpts of the second book were copied.
The importance of the Commonitorium rests on the development of a single thought contained in the unmutilated first book. The purpose was to establish principles whereby the right could be distinguished in the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy, to combine in right relation the two great principles of the authority of the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church Catholic, and to secure certainty for the correct determination of both. The Catholic should never be uncertain as to what the Bible and tradition actually prescribe. But while the Bible contains only truth and all things necessary for salvation, it is evidently open to misinterpretation, as is shown by heretical and false exegesis of every kind. The fundamentals of Catholic dogma, therefore, can be decided only in accordance with the authority of the interpretation of the Church; and in a famous sentence he declares that only that is truly and properly Catholic ‘“‘ which is believed everywhere, always, and by all.” These three elements decide in favor of the genuine teachings of the Church against every form of heresy. If a new heresy arises, the good Catholic should hold to the universal teaching of the Church as opposed to a single deviating view. If the universal character be lacking because of apostasy in many parts of the Church at
XII.—13