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 rtnmutilated 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 be cause of apostasy in many parts of the Church at XIL-13

the same time, then appeal must be made to ancient teachings in the Church, in which case the heresy in question will usually be found to be opposed to the entire ancient Church. If, however, similar errors were represented in early times by a single theologian or by a portion of the Church, then the final appeal moat be taken to the prevailing majority of teachers in churches in early times. Vincent was firmly convinced that the Church, Catholic had been, from the very first, the possessor of truth, and of the whole truth necessary for salvation; and heretics without exception are innovators seeking to destroy a portion of the inheritance of the Church. In matters of faith he held that the surest decisions moat ever be sought is the writings of the ancients.

Vincent did not write his Commonitorium because of a purely academic interest in the establishment of a canon of Catholic faith, but tacitly to assail the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination (q.v.). Although Augustine is never mentioned by name, and while Pelagius and Julian of Echjnum are rejected with horror, the language employed is essentially Semipelagian, and the entire work is filled with allusions to Augustine and his system of polemics. He would not, indeed, rob that great master of his fame. Nevertheless, he was keenly aware of the dangers of Augustine's teachings, and therefore called upon all Christendom to bethink themselves before it should be too late, giving them a canon disastrous to the new-(angled doctrine of predestination, for whose support no ancient Father of the Church could be cited.

Thus Vincent devised his canon and wrote his book to aid in the controversy then raging among the Gallic theologians concerning free-will or grace. There is little doubt that he belonged to the majority who emphasized the necessity both of the human will and of divine grace as opposed to the strictly Augustinian Prosper of Aquitaine. In a brief treatise by Prosper Pro Augustini doctrina re. sponsiones ad capitols objectionum Vincentianarum (MPL, xlv. 1843-50, H. 177-182) are contained sixteen theses evidently composed by a Semipelagian in criticism of the doctrine of predestination. Since Prosper combated these theses as set up by Vincent, they can scarcely have been posited by any other Vincent than the monk of Lerins. They seem to have been promulgated before their author wrote the pseudonymous Commonitorium. It is not impossible that Vincent did not intend them to be made public, but that Prosper in some way gained possession of a copy of them.

It has also been suggested that Vincent, if not the author of the Capitols calumniantium Gallorum, closely akin to the Objectiones V incentiance and answered by Prosper in another work (MPL, xlv. 1835-44, Ii. 155 sqq.), at least inspired and influenced them. Such a hypothesis, however, even if granted, adds little to the information given by the Commonitorium alone, that Vincent was one of the Gallic clergy who, in the fifth century, were decidedly opposed to the innovations of Augustine. He can scarcely have restricted himself to the halfhidden allusions in his Commonitorium to what he considered a deadly heresy, but none of his possible

(G. A. Jülicher.)

Bibliography: Gennadius, De vir. a71., lav., Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2d ser., iii. 398; F. X. Elpelt, Des heitigen Vincent von Lerin Ermahnunpsbuch, Leben and Lehren, Brealau, 1840; Hefele, in Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Archltotopye and Ldturpdk, i (1884 ), 145-174; Poitel, De utroque Comnwn%torto Lerinenai, Nancy, 1895; H. Koch, in TQS, 1899, pp. 398 sqq.; idem, Vincenz von Lorin and Gennadius, in TU, 3d aer_ 1, part 2, 1907: yincendi Lerinensis Comnwnitorta, in FLoriLepium patriat%oum, ed. G. Rauachen, Bonn, 1908; F. Brunetibre and P. de Labriolle, Vincent of Lertna, Paris. 1908; KL, mi. 985-989; DOB, iv. 115458; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 344, 813614, 882-863; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii. passim; the literature under Semipelagianism, and the works on the church history of his period.